chistians are hypocrites

[CritiquingChrist]

I am Charlotte Schnook. I authored that piece years ago, and it belonged to a massive collection in which I went over hundreds of more verses then shown here. After time, things seem to get mangled across the net, but it's nice to know that people still use my stuff from time to time.

Anyhow, when running a search on my name I noticed this site, and thought since it posted here, I might as well refute a little of what was said.

We are not under the power of the law which was to bring death to sinners because we now live by the Spirit that was sent to us. By accepting this free gift we fulfill the law and in our inner beings we delight in the law because it makes us like Him.

Yes you are under the power of the law. The Bible contradicts itself on almost every concievable event, the law included. There are so many Christians running around talking about how Jesus supposedly lifted them from the law. But you can make a case even more air tight for the opposite. Let's take a quick look at the history of Judaism: Ancient religion based on the notion that blood sacrifice is required for purification. Nation conquered and exiled. Nation wonders how religion can still be followed without a temple in which to sacrifice. Faith now under reinterpretation. Voila, along comes the perfect blood sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Now what's the purpose of sacrifice? It doesn't make you sinless, it purifies you of your sin. Sacrifice doesn't end the law, it forgives for transgression of the law. That is why Christ said "not one iota of the law shall fail" that is why he said that the law was given onto Moses and should be kept, that is why he still quotes many of the ancient commandments and even judges his contemporaries based on those laws. I had a sermon on my site in fact called "Can We Ignore The OT?", too bad it's not here, because I don't feel like rewriting it. LOL

Anyways, the bottom line is: the idea that Christians have escaped the law is based on interpreting random verses so that they may escape the ancient and immoral rituals. Mean while, they completely ignore the passages that tell them the law is eternal.

So now that your motives have been exposed since it is not truth that you seek, can you tell me why you do not do even the simplest one of God's laws which is to love thy neigbour as thyself, given that I am a neighbour?

That's the point my friend. If the goal is love of fellow man, then why follow a book which tells you to kill your fellow man for the most absurd of reasons? When I read the entire Bible, and seen for myself the horrifying commands in it, the phrase: "Do not throw pearls before swine" came to mind. The Bible is a swine, love is the pearl. We should not be idling in two thousand year old dogma at the sake of human progress and compassion. When you refuse to do that, you expose yourself not as a lover, but as an immoral fiend seeking his own reward at the expense of others, nothing more. Maybe it is your motives that "have been exposed" when you continue to be a Christian in light of it's commanded atrocities.

Maybe Charlotte Schnook. The essay is almost meaningless - bones only vultures could feed on. It for arguments like these that Jesus said "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

As I said earlier, the essay belonged to a collection. I beg to differ though, it does raises the point that Christians refuse to follow OT commands in direct violation of the many passages which say we should. So, is that not hypocrisy?

It's clear that the author would be just as surprised at any other law in the Bible. If she only payed more attention to the introduction to Lev. 19: "Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy." That is the fountain from which all laws spring, and the thirstier you become, the more you will hate each drop that fails to quench your thirst.

Nothing about the Bible manages to surprise me. I am most familiar with your leviticus quote, and it only serves to back up the classical atheistic question: "is something good (holy) because it is of God?" Well, then, if I am to believe Lev. 19 then I guess we better go back to stoning our women for not being virgins or take on slaves, because that is only holy, right? Please! I don't need to "pay more attention" buddy, you do!

Jesus is not a hypocrite. True Christians follow Jesus, (the word of god) so they are not hypocrites.

Another mouthy Jesus Jockey who has yet to read the Bible. Are you even aware that Jesus broke his own laws? Or lied? Yep, all in the bible, try reading it.

Yes, anyone who calls another a fool is in "danger of hell fire" What's the problem here? How is this hypocrisy? This is like you trying to tell an engineer how to build a bridge. You haven't a clue yet you are trying to instruct an expert. If I called you a fool, since I don't have a clue about you, I would be wrong... Jesus, on the other hand, is an expert. Jesus knows your heart and he can make an accurate assesment. Jesus is not being a hypocrite.

Time for a logic problem since someone doesn't seem to get it:
-Hypocrisy is not do as you preach
-Jesus preached that anyone who says fool will go to hell
-Jesus called someone a fool
= Jesus by his own action is worthy of hell fire, and is a hypocrite because he fails to do what he preaches.

I hate that Christian idea that God is above the law because he created the law. It's a cop out for when something immoral is exposed. Cops, Judges, politicians, etc. They create law, should we give them a get out of jail free card? It's different because they are not God? Not in my book, I believe in morality, consistency and actually holding beings responsible for their actions, God doesn't escape this judgment. Especially when he said that we have knowledge equal to his concerning what is right and what is wrong.

Ahhh... Well, I'm done ranting, perhaps I'll check back in another time.

 

[CritiquingChrist]

OOPS! Forgot to comment on somenthing

An atheist may say "I dont believe in God. I am the greatest thing there is."

I don't know what atheist told ya this, but this atheist doesn't say that. I don't believe in a God, but I do not believe I am the greatest thing there is. I have a reverance for all forms of life. I don't believe in a religion which tells me I am in charge of the planet, it's shepherd, to use it for my own reward. To kill animals for a sacrifice, to kill other humans for not believing as I do. I think you have things backwards my friend. You make religionists seem so meek while the atheist is arrogant, when your scriptures reveal what is really going on.

Atheist's think they are the greatest whilst the believer's are meak. It is not suprising therefore that atheists enjoy persecuting the believers. But I tell you now, it is cowardice and this makes the meak so very much stronger than you in reality.

We enjoy persecuting non believers? Really? Because I don't remember the great Atheist Inquisition, or the Atheist conquistidors. I certainly don't recall any holy wars we waged either. You don't call yourself "Christian Soldiers" for nothing. Stop playing the poor martyred Jesus, you belong to the bloodiest cult that has ever existed in human history.

Carry on. You make me stronger.

And to you as well. The more Christians try to play with legislation, the more they play the martyr role, the more they proselytize and impede on my rights, the more I stand up and stick in their face what immoral hypocrites they are. Sadly, the atheist crusade doesn't seem to compell you to read your Bible though. Who am I kidding? Jesus himself said if you don't know his word then you don't know him, but that didn't make you actually read it either.

 

[duendy]

HI Critiquing_Christ.....i am very much enjoying what you are saying, and will most definately checkout what you have written before. You have strong insight

I am in no way a bible freak, but obviusly am familiar with it being brought up in the West. so Jesus--the mythical character of 'Jesus'...what do LIKe about him

i like the bit where he chills out with the 'riff raff', the real people. i would imagine him having a laugh, and NOT preaching at them
i liked his seeing through hypocrisy, but as you say he doesn't practice what he preached

but you know. i would ask you, and any others. so this would be asking both sides--as it were. WHERE is THe solid evidence Jesus even existed?
From my understanding no such evidence exists. JM.Allegro in his book The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth reckons that therer did exist a 'Teacher of Rightousness' who had been crucified. But this happened way before the so-called crucifiction of a 'Jesus of Nazarerth

i ask this, cause if there is ONE MAIN thing Christians do do is....make out that THEIR myth is real and historical. this is what singles it out--for them--from the pagan god~man myths they had appropriated the tale of Jesus FROM!
They truly depend on this belief, and their whole ethos of linear historical progress (reflected also in their so-called 'secular' world) is based on the written about event of their, NOW, "'God'~man" having been given over by the Jews, tortured, and crucified, by the Romans, and then undergoing 'Resurrection', in 'PHYSICAL' form.

All this they hang onto for grim life!

 

[mis-t-highs]

Hi Charlotte, excellent piece, and excellent replies also, are you going to stay on the forum.
it would be very interesting, to read some more of you thoughts, in the future.
so welcome and heres hoping.

incidentlly, it's has always amased me, how religious people never seem to know there own religious books, and how they seem to think atheist are the evil, go figure.

 

[The Devil Inside]

incidentlly, it's has always amased me, how religious people never seem to know there own religious books, and how they seem to think atheist are the evil, go figure.

well, i know my "religious books", and i dont think that you saying that is any different than the people you are condemning. i dont think you are "the evil".

broad generalizations are the weapons of the foolish. your previous posts have not been this inflammatory. why resort to that?

 

[CritiquingChrist]

duendy:so Jesus--the mythical character of 'Jesus'...what do LIKe about him

That is a great question duendy, and one that people rarely ask me because they are intent on batteling me instead. Ya know, I'm a funny character, though I am a rabid atheist, I am also a situation ethicist in many ways. For those of you who do not know what situation ethics is, let me explain: It is an ethical school modeled after the revolutionary Jesus, it states that in order to be ethical, you must always attempt to do the loving thing. (I also blend with utilitarianism: the greatest good, for the greatest amount of people.)

Why? I was a Christian for many years before I became an atheist. Not many people know that about me. My family was related to the papacy and I was heavily involved with the Catholic doctrine of charity and good works. I was in love with the Jesus who said "blessed art the peacemakers" and "love is the sum of the law". I was in love with the Jesus who ministered to the Samaritan woman, who turned over the tables and screamed at the hypocrital money changers. I loved the Jesus who preached that our duty is to care for the marginalized, to live as a martyr, I loved the Jesus who was a revolutionary, who was the embodiment of compassion and duty. Amos, who continually cried for the marginalized and questioned God for his lack of action, was my earthly hero. Hell, I still love that Jesus and adore Amos!

But when growing up close to the papacy, I heard the intrigues, I seen the hording of wealth, the plotting against the masses, all these hypocritical and horrid things that made me wonder how they could justify their actions. So I took my theological education into my own hands and decided it was time for me to read the scriptures. Needless to say, I was horrified! The things they with held from my fellow Christians was shaking my faith. I made a plea to God. Show me evidence of his existence, and I would do my best to keep exploring. I ended up going to Carroll College for my B.A in religious studies, and the more I educated myself, the more atheistic I became. I was so desperate I started changing my deal with God: I'll keep studying and you just fill me with faith, I want to believe so bad that I'll even go without the evidence! (The logical part of my mind hated me for that one. LOL) I became ordained, went on for my M.div, and am currently an atheist pondering my PHD in comparative religions.

But something happened in that time, religion stopped being what is truth or false for me. It became something more. I understand it now as not salvation, but hope. It's that primal cry all human beings scream out to the cosmos. Our fears, our fragilities, our longing for love, to escape the human condition, for redemption. It's our plea for significance in the face of overwhelming infinity and omnipotent matter that crushes us everyday. Religion is man's hope. And I love it, for that reason.

Becoming an atheist only underscored my desire for charity, morality and good works. I see life as intirely fragile, unique, as something which demands protection and reverence. And what did religion bring me? It allowed me comfort in faith when I faced sorrows. Fine, but look at how it allows others rampant apathy, errant righteousness against our brothers, and it confines us to ancient immorality that represses our compassion and revolution. Hence, how can religion be good when it brings so much sorrow? No wonder why Christianity did not reflect the good parts of Jesus' ministry rampantly, because religion main function is an exercise in self adoration and comfort.

I made the final bet with "God" when I rid myself of the last of my faith. "I don't believe you exist, I'm insane for merely uttering this outloud, but here it is my non-existent God, my cosmos: I'm gonna embody my truth, because it has shown itself to be right, and commands me on it's own merit. I believe in love and compassion so thouroughly, that I shall not limit it with a religion, that I shall not limit it with a faith. Because you are not here, I shall use the meager god in me to eleviate what you refuse to do. And if, if by some chance I am wrong, then damn me to hell, because I'd rather burn then hurt another living soul in the name of false love. Besides, if you do exist, then loving your creations would only be the highest form of worship, so, the ball is in your court. I know how moral I am, let's see how moral you are."

That was the last I spoke to God. Going for my m.div was a smack in the face concerning all the lack of physical evidence for a deity. I long ago shrugged him morally, but my education allowed me to shrug him logically and scientifically as well. I feel like Jesus, with as weird as that sounds. For years I tried to live devoutly, tried to love, overlook the immorality. And in the end when I understood what love really was, I felt forsaken by God. I wanted to forgive my brothers, but was also enraged at their hypocrisy. One day I am preaching the joys of forgiveness, and the next I'm shouting "ye white sepulchers!" LOL That's "what I like about Jesus". That he was human, that he was contradictory, that he loved, that he questioned, that he felt duty, he felt scared, he was angry, but he fought. He fought for what he felt was truth, and took everyone's shit in the scheme of it all. Of course there are many things I detest about Jesus as well, and as an atheist I simply take what has worth, and move on in his hope of redemption. I think that is what being a Christian should mean.

What a fucking sermon, hey? Sorry I get off track and start to rant, it has been ages since I spoke publically from the hip about religion. As you progress with education you are expected to stick with intellectual topics such as the eschatological urgency of the markan narrative, etc. It's as if there is some code in theology that if you speak forthright in brutal layman's terms you aren't truly fit for the field. I'm enjoying this immensely. To just be able to lay my thoughts out there without having to dress them up. This repression via the field is why there aren't many books circulating concerning the fallacies of religion that those outside of the field desire to read. That always troubled me. Because this country could use an honest theological education something fierce.

I want to take the time to thank you guys for allowing me to pop in here and just speak from the hip. And since my post is rather long I guess I'll have to make another to address the rest of the comments. Sorry about all this reading folks. My calling card is my long windedness, it's something you'll have to get used to when dealing with me. LOL

 

[cole grey]

CRITIQUING says, “The Bible contradicts itself on almost every concievable event, the law included.”

This is inflammatory.
The bible does not comment twice on “every conceivable event”.
If you mean to say the bible specifically opposes itself on every event it describes more than once, I would say it does not.
If you mean to say that the bible sometimes seems to contradict itself, I would agree.
...

CRITIQUING says, “Maybe it is your motives that "have been exposed" when you continue to be a Christian in light of it's commanded atrocities.”

Please inform me of the “commanded atrocities” of Christianity, as taught by the bible and not by some organized religions' additions. I seem to have missed them in my studies.
Are you just implying that all christians are commanded to follow all of the old testament laws?
If you are implying something else, I am interested to see what the "commanded atrocities" are.

...
CRITIQUING says, “Maybe Time for a logic problem since someone doesn't seem to get it:
-Hypocrisy is not do as you preach
-Jesus preached that anyone who says fool will go to hell
-Jesus called someone a fool
= Jesus by his own action is worthy of hell fire, and is a hypocrite because he fails to do what he preaches.”

Possibly your understanding of the meaning of the words in the passages you refer to is correct. If so, Jesus may simply be saying that any person who calls another person “fool”, is aligning themsleves with Hell by raising their own understanding to the level of the ultimate judge, which could be described as satan’s path. Jesus would have seen himself as having no ability to align himself with hell, as he believed (apparently) that his understanding was already in alignment with the ultimate judge, as evidenced by his reference to his “relationship” with God.

Also, if anyone calls themselves a “christian soldier” they have issues.

 

[cole grey]

sorry about that one sentence-

The bible does not comment twice on “almost every conceivable event”.
I quoted you without the "almost".
Still inflammatory.

 

[cole grey]

Audible,
your post brings up many good questions, some which I have already resolved for myself, some which I have not.
I think you are right in calling this "perhaps the mother of verses ignored". I may have an opinion on your atheism, or my theism, but to say that I have the final word is to make myself the "judge". I don't judge your atheism.

 

[CritiquingChrist]

duendy: i like the bit where he chills out with the 'riff raff', the real people. i would imagine him having a laugh, and NOT preaching at them
i liked his seeing through hypocrisy, but as you say he doesn't practice what he preached

You hit Jesus on the head here. You never seen him hanging with kings or high officials. He said the temple is the body. He didn't go to church, he taught on mountain tops, hung with "prostitutes", tax collectors. He hung with a samaritan, and fisherman. Jesus went to the temple and actually beat up the money changers inside! Jesus was not the pomp and ritual that Christians have made him out to be. Thanks to interpolation, Peter is now the rock of the church, and Christians are what Jesus would be embarssed of (at least, you can use the scriptures to make that case, along with others.)

but you know. i would ask you, and any others. so this would be asking both sides--as it were. WHERE is THe solid evidence Jesus even existed? From my understanding no such evidence exists. JM.Allegro in his book The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth reckons that therer did exist a 'Teacher of Rightousness' who had been crucified. But this happened way before the so-called crucifiction of a 'Jesus of Nazarerth

Your understanding is correct, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence what so ever that a Jesus of Nazareth as stated in the Bible ever existed. In fact, there is overwhelming points of evidence to the contrary. How many Christians know there was no city of Nazareth until at least 400 years after Jesus' death? How many Christians know that Roman laws would not have allowed him to be crucified in the manner or at the time he was? How many Christians know that Josephus is a proven late interpolation? How many Christians know that we have early gnostic Christians such as Marcion which wrote that Jesus was a mythic character and was being "carnalized" for the sake of laying claim to the roman throne? They don't! And they never can know, because the heirarchy that is enabled by Christian ignorance would crumble. Christians have no idea how they are being used by the system; and sadly, they don't care, their in it for the reward, just as the church is in it for the profits.

And JM.Allegro is parially right. Like I said earlier, the Jewish religion was experiancing a crisis of faith. They had to reinterpret the OT in order to continue on with their religions. So there were tons of would be lambs running around. Let's not forget what was going on politically either. This is something every Christian should really pay attention to, because it's implications expose how Christianity really evolved. The Roman empire was able to survive by supressing the identity of the newly conquered. They made it law that all people had to follow the main pantheon of deities of the Grecco-Romans. (That's where the term atheist comes from, "away from theos". Anyone who didn't follow the Greek pantheon was an atheist, including Christians.) The Jews revolted in 76 ad (which is why the Markan gospel is dated to that time) and they simply would not let up! The Romans crushed their temple, persecuted them ,etc. But the Jews kept fighting, and the Romans actually gave in! They made a law called "Lawful Religion". In which any people that could prove they had an ancestral religion prior to being conquered could continue to practice it. Well guess who had evidence they had a preexisting religion? The Jews, they had scripture! Now there was a hope for all those esoteric schools. If they could graft their religions onto Judaism they could fall under the Lawful religion clause. So then we see a host of ancient myths being grafted onto Judaism. Makes sense now how Christianity is so reminiscient of Mithraism? Makes sense how we have the trinity? Makes sense how Christianity is a hybrid of other religions? Makes sense how the major religions that had contact with the Roman empire all grafted onto Judaism? Why I believe it does!

i ask this, cause if there is ONE MAIN thing Christians do do is....make out that THEIR myth is real and historical. this is what singles it out--for them--from the pagan god~man myths they had appropriated the tale of Jesus FROM!

I think most modern missionary religions do this.

They truly depend on this belief, and their whole ethos of linear historical progress (reflected also in their so-called 'secular' world) is based on the written about event of their, NOW, "'God'~man" having been given over by the Jews, tortured, and crucified, by the Romans, and then undergoing 'Resurrection', in 'PHYSICAL' form.

Linear? You must be from the east. Not many Western people would understand their religion to be linear unless they either had a theological education, or were not originally from a western religion. Do you mind me asking where you are from? By the way, the Christians wrote that part about blaming the death of Jesus onto the Jews to escape Roman persecution. However, it is quite clear that the Romans could have pardoned him if they wished. Thanks to that stupid passage, Christians have been able to use it as justification for waging wars on the Jews. Another fact I wish Christians knew: Hitler was a Catholic. He still hasn't been excommunicated! Goes to show how the church will play the populace like a violin when it suits to line their pockets. Christians in my country better open their eyes and realize we are dangerously close to repeating history with the way the republicans use them. (Owww! I'm gonna piss off people with that one, that's for sure LMAO)

mis-t-highs: Hi Charlotte, excellent piece, and excellent replies also, are you going to stay on the forum. it would be very interesting, to read some more of you thoughts, in the future. so welcome and heres hoping.

Thank you my dear! You made me smile quite wide ya know. But be careful what ya wish for LOL, I believe I may end up talking your head off if you let me. I'm sure I will pop in on this thread. The rest of the forum, I'm not too sure of. I like politics and philosophy, but it seems boards like this are filled with people who like to rant and don't have the facts to back their opinions up. I used to hang on a philosophy forum where people arrogantly assumed that because they enjoyed intellectual topics it some how made them the alpha and omega of knowledge. The last time I spoke publically about religion I actually had some nimrod tell me I had to write him a friggin dissertation to prove the gnostics had influenced Christianity. Needless to say the time that would take would leave me at the pc for years. All the evidence is out there, and I'm not about to do someones homework for them. If the fact that the John gospel is officially called the "Gnostic Johannine Gospel" doesn't make ya blink, then the idiot was beyond logic as far as I'm concerned. I don't take well to people who debate to be a thorn. I may be abrasive and non apologetic, but I do believe that if I enter a debate it is because I have something worthwhile to part and be open to learning as well. So tell me, are the people arogant and not true debators here? Are they educated (doesn't have to be in a class room, sometimes the best education you can get is from the public library)? Are they antagonistic?

incidentlly, it's has always amased me, how religious people never seem to know there own religious books, and how they seem to think atheist are the evil, go figure.

Amen!

The Devil Inside: well, i know my "religious books", and i dont think that you saying that is any different than the people you are condemning. i dont think you are "the evil". broad generalizations are the weapons of the foolish. your previous posts have not been this inflammatory. why resort to that?

I don't think she is generalizing. It's the truth. When completing my BA I took the capstone key seminar of religious stastics. In that class I learned that only 4, thats right FOUR, percent of Christians have read the entire bible. While 75% of atheists have. That blew my mind! And it also made incredible sense as well. Christianity is quite frankly: laziness. It's a way to attain salvation without purification, without education, without action, all one needs is faith. And faith is a comfort all humans desire. Yet the atheist sacrifices it for what he knows to be truth. (Believe me Christians, it is a sacrifice. There are still days that I weep for God's non existence.) And according to that statistic he got his truth from actually educating himself. It's by no pure coincidence the majority of intellectuals in the world are not from the Christian persuasion. The last true intellectual Christian was Isaac Newton!

And the idea that atheists are deemed evil certainly isn't a generalization. I made a sermon once on my old website that talked about the shit my brethren goes through daily, and how it is not even aknowledged by others because it is so common place. Perfect example: George Bush senior said that atheists should't even be considered American citizens. That sounds like judging to me. Can you imagine what would happen if a president said that about Christians? But of course, no one blinks a friggin eye when it's said about my brethren. Christians cry about how 2,300 of them were persecuted by Romans 2,000 years ago. Do they have a tear, or even acknowledge the thousands of atheists Christian Hitler tossed in the ovens? Do they cry over the millions of us who were mudered during the dark ages? Why, they say it's a myth! Their scripture actually commands them to KILL US! So a broad generalization it is not. You don't see any atheist manifesto which tells me Darwin commanded I stone to death any Christian I find. If you truly "know your religious books" then try to justify to me how deuteronomy is compassionate to my ilk. I don't think ya can. And that's because you probably haven't read your scriptures as thouroughly as you claim.

 

[cole grey]

Now you all may freely call me jerk for posting so much, but I just wanted to say to CRITIQUING that I would not accuse you of being a "judge" because of your use of the word "meager" and because you say there is a "chance" you could be wrong.
It is people who don't know this that are over-estimating themselves.
I suppose by the same methods, there is a chance I am under-estimating myself and others.

 

[Gravity]

Americans simply are living in fantasy land - 80% of Americans are Christian, so they think that is the normal standard. But 2/3rds of humanity are NOT CHRISTIAN.

Americans don't even believe you when you tell them that sometimes (you can easily look it up in any Almanac or on the web)! And hell, that "80% of Americans" is being being charitable: lumping everybody from Mormons, to Jehovah's Witnesses, to Amish, to Catholics, to Baptists and etc together -- most of whom don't consider *each other* ''true'' Christians!

2/3rds of Humanity . . . (at the *least*) - NOT Christian. Believe whatever you want America, but don't push it on the world.

-----------------------------------------------------

"Religions change, beer and wine remain" - Harvey Allen

 

[CritiquingChrist]

Oh my, just when I thought I was finished, I post my reply and I see someone is replying while I type.

cole grey: The bible does not comment twice on “almost every conceivable event”.
I quoted you without the "almost".
Still inflammatory.

Inflamatory? Why is the truth inflammatory? The bible contains over 8,000 contradictions, this has been admitted by Theologians, biblical scholars, even the Catholic church! If the truth is inflammatory to you, then I think it's time for you to step back and ask yourself why.

Please inform me of the “commanded atrocities” of Christianity, as taught by the bible and not by some organized religions' additions. I seem to have missed them in my studies.
Are you just implying that all christians are commanded to follow all of the old testament laws?
If you are implying something else, I am interested to see what the "commanded atrocities" are.

Oh God! This is what I'm talking about when I say people expect me to do their homework. The list of atrocities committed upon and commanded by the bible is so massive, I could fill this entire forum with them. Do you honestly want me to post every little thing? I could ya know, but I think people will get awfully sick of my constant posts. Sincerely, you need to go to the Skeptics annointed bible, evilbible.com (I took my site down, but they rescued lots of my old sermons) or some other site which lists the thousands of immoralities the bible contains with exact quotes. You'll find shit like how we should beat our slaves, kill our kids, stone for sabbath breaking, kill people of other religions, and I assure you, a great deal of that is echoed in the new testament as well. As far as the OT still being relevant, I talked about that briefly in an earlier post, go consult it.

Possibly your understanding of the meaning of the words in the passages you refer to is correct. If so, Jesus may simply be saying that any person who calls another person “fool”, is aligning themsleves with Hell by raising their own understanding to the level of the ultimate judge, which could be described as satan’s path. Jesus would have seen himself as having no ability to align himself with hell, as he believed (apparently) that his understanding was already in alignment with the ultimate judge, as evidenced by his reference to his “relationship” with God.

YHWH laid down rules, Jesus said those rules are eternal, and he is the incarnate of YHWH. Then he goes on to break a good deal of those rules he set forth. This my friend is hypocrisy. Because he's God doesn't mean he has the ability to escape my judgment concerning what rules he broke. I don't care how much you try to reinterpret what Jesus did. The bottom line is he broke his own rules, and for that, he contradicted himself and is bound to his punishments by his OWN admission.

I think you are right in calling this "perhaps the mother of verses ignored". I may have an opinion on your atheism, or my theism, but to say that I have the final word is to make myself the "judge". I don't judge your atheism.

That's really nice to read, but you should. According to deuteronomy and leviticus you are supposed to judge her evil, and then stone her to death for not believing in your YHWH. And you can see for yourself the law still stands in all of the gospels. (another contradiction of course, because some verses say the law is not binding, what you choose to believe is basically measured by what ever is most convienant, as christians always seem to do.) Regardless of the OT, you aren't even supposed to engage in talking to a non believer because their evil will be judged as your own, as the NT says. So according to your bible you are faced with dilema: either pray reverently for forgiveness for engaging the atheist, or out right kill us.

I swear, maybe I should put my old site back up someday, because It really is a pain to list every little verse when a christian asks. At least I'd have some link to directly point them too without racking my brain.

 

[okinrus]

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.

Your being too judgmental, I think.

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.

The Bible before the Protestants was not quite the defacto guide your making it out to be.

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;

Your confusing hypocrisy with different notions of what the Bible teaches. Someone can believe homosexual unions are alright and still believe in the Bible. They are not hypocritical but mistaken.

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.

Again, interpretation based upon context is different from hypocrisy.

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.

For Catholics divorce is impossible unless if the marriage is annulled, which is basically proving the marriage never happended.

How many Christians are working on a second, third or fourth marriage?

That's not hypocrisy, though. All your saying is that Christians commit sins and hide sins. The hiding of sins from the public is not hypocrisy.

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:

He also said to let your light filll the room. I wouldn't interpret the following verse as physical command but a spiritual one. We should be able to pray anywhere, but we should also not pray merely to have public praise.

(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.

I'm not following. Where's the connection between evolution and praying in secret?

They demand parochial school receive voucher programs so that they may collect public funding.

If Parochial schools are reducing the cost of books, by taking students who'd otherwise go to public schools taxing the public school money, then why not? Why should the parents of these children going to parochial schools pay for the public school and parochial school's books with their tax money?

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.

Again, someone can pray in public but follow what Jesus said. That is, to pray in secret is to to have complete focus on God, not on the world around you. If someone trys to have this focus in the world, while praying in public, then they are able to follow what Jesus said. After all, someone who'd have this focus perfectly wouldn't even notice he or she was praying in public.

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.

No, allowing children time to pray is different from forcing children.

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

I'm not following what you mean by this. Paul's books consist not only of both intructions for the churches at that specific time and place, but also of instruction that was complete and final.

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!

The issue here is not the clothes, which are just physical artifacts, but the attempt to change the way they were created.

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”.

I'm not following you here. The roman courts at the time of Paul were ungodly. The courts now are not as bad as the romans but are still not perfect. Giving adivice that Christians should, when in argument, attempt to resolve their problems outside the court is good advice, I think.

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!

Hypocrisy is the false show of gooodness in order to obtain some type of benefit. Neither attempting to bring the supreme court up to par, the school system, nor your taxes have anything to do with hypocrisy, I think.

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.

Those judges and juries are not judging others, persay, but what others have done. The distinction is that a jury does not decide whether a given person is going to hell or is a bad person, but whether that person has committed a crime.

]
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

Most likely Luke adapated this saying from an aramaic quotation. In aramaic, from what I've read, the same word for hate also means to put aside.

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 (which is supposedly infallible) uses “father” as a specific title.

At this level of scrutinity, you had best say Christians cannot call anyone the aramaic word for father, abba.

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.

And what is the law, you believe?

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.

Jesus gave us the commands in the NT. Why do you suggest the Law(Jewish word for teachings) is the OT? Could Jesus mean what he taught was the Law?

Christians more then any other faith consult mystics and self-proclaimed oracles.

Your statistic for this are where?

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.

Some of the OT laws have been fulfilled so-to-speak in the NT. For example, Jesus, when asked about the diatary restrictions, said that what enters a man's stomach does not defile him but what comes out of his mouth. That is not to say that Christians don't keep the old law, but that Christians keep a fulfilled law, where the things that harm and defile us are not food but are sin.

 

[cole grey]

That's really nice to read, but you should. According to deuteronomy and leviticus you are supposed to judge her evil, and then stone her to death for not believing in your YHWH. And you can see for yourself the law still stands in all of the gospels. (another contradiction of course, because some verses say the law is not binding, what you choose to believe is basically measured by what ever is most convienant, as christians always seem to do.)

CRITIQUING,

1 By using what i have perceived from everything I have studied about the bible, and not taking one verse as the be-all-end-all (at which point I would have to throw it up against another be-all-end-all verse from some other place), I try to come to what I consider the "truths" of the bible are.

2 Many of these "truths", I think, are the ones you derive from your interpretations. I believe that the greatest commandments, as Jesus taught them were, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "
Then he supposedly said, " There is no commandment greater than these."
These commandments should be the beginning point for all interpretation of the "law". I assert that this is the "Christian" supreme court.
By the way, none of the ten commandments (which is what I think Jesus was talking about when he said he wasn't here to get rid of the law), oppose his two. Even 'thou shalt have no other Gods', does not require you to try to ensure that nobody else on earth have another God.

3 I see verses in the bible which seem to say "follow the law", and I see others which seem to say "you don't have to follow the law". I then come upon another verse telling me someone should be killed for adultery or whatever and assume that it is not my responsibility to kill them because I see this as contra-indicated by Jesus' second commandment, which I hold as "greater" than this one. If I cannot pass the responibility for killing them on to someone else (like the adulterer's spouse, or the judaic court, or whoever), I will then assume that I am misunderstanding either the translation, the context, or something else, about the adultery thing. Or maybe I will just sit there confused. But I feel pretty safe in making the assumption that, unless Jesus specifically ordered me somehow to do it (at which point he would THEN contradict himself), that "I" am absolutely NOT commanded to kill them.

Hopefully these steps are helpful in explaining why I don't feel the need to "judge" AUDIBLE, as this would be breaking Jesus' "second commandment".

 

[cole grey]

CRITIQUING,
Also, many of the "truths" I come to are not convenient, and when my thoughts, words, and deeds go against them, as often happens, I don't change the "truths" to fit my desires. I often try this tactic, but it usually doesn't work.

 

[cole grey]

i ask this, cause if there is ONE MAIN thing Christians do do is....make out that THEIR myth is real and historical. this is what singles it out--for them--from the pagan god~man myths they had appropriated the tale of Jesus FROM!

I would submit to you that if there is one thing that singles christianity out from most other religions (pure land buddhism being one possible reason I use the word most), it is dependence on a savior to reach God.
I agree that many christians are confused about this, and about your point regarding the "appropriation".

 

[CritiquingChrist]

okinrus: Your being too judgmental, I think.

Really? Well then, please indulge me. Tell me what contemporary Christian you know who follows the life of Christ to a T? Tell me what Christian has managed to sell all that they own and give it to the poor for alms. Then continue to spend the rest of their lives caring for the marginalized, until the very end. This is supposed to be Christian duty, Jesus himself said you can not know him unless you give all that you have to the poor. And save me the Mother Theresa bit, because when it was her turn to go she made sure to be hospitalized in France, receiving the best care humanity had to offer, I wonder how much alms that bill could have afforded.

The Bible before the Protestants was not quite the defacto guide your making it out to be.

In my summation Protestants can be even worse than Catholics! At least Catholics understand the importance of good works. The rise of protestantism gave us jungle capitalism, and it is the anti-thesis to Christian politics.

Your confusing hypocrisy with different notions of what the Bible teaches. Someone can believe homosexual unions are alright and still believe in the Bible. They are not hypocritical but mistaken.

I'm not confusing anything. You either call yourself a Christian and attempt to model your life after Christ, and follow what the bible commands, or else you don't. And if you don't while still calling yourself a Christian, then you are not practicing what you claim to believe and preach, that makes a hypocrite.

Again, interpretation based upon context is different from hypocrisy.

And here we go with the old context and interpretation excuses. The bible is very cut and dry. Jesus said outright, as well as the string of prophets for two thousand years, that the duty of believers is to care for the poor. Is it done? No, why? Hypocrisy, pure and simple. There is no interpretation about it. The bible tells us what is expected, you can choose to follow it or not. But when you choose not to, you are also choosing to be called a hypocrite by people who witness your failings as a self professed christian.

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.

Marriage is as biblical contradictive as many topics. We have an OT system of betrothel. We have versus which state bastards are not allowed in the temple. We have a concubine system, a system which states women are only saved in child bearing, etc. And then you have the NT. Which frowns upon marriage due to the eschatological urgency and neglect of bodily integrity. You have a savior that is in all definition a bastard (hence violating OT law) and he tells us adultery is worthy of death! Marriage in accordance to the Bible is a nightmare of contradiction. So most rely on Catholic tradition, since it has been the only Christian tradition for close to 1,500 years. And yet Catholics continually violate this tradition while seeing fit to proselytize to me. It's a joke, and that's what I'm railing against!

That's not hypocrisy, though. All your saying is that Christians commit sins and hide sins. The hiding of sins from the public is not hypocrisy.

Again, since everyone keeps insisting it's not hypocrisy, I think a definition is in order. "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness." Alright: Christians profess to believe in and follow a Bible which says adultery is a sin, and yet they committ it. Catholics profess to follow a tradition that they violate. This IS hypocrisy.
The funny thing is, I don't see what the big deal is. It's as if Christians have so bought into the idea of grace for all sins, that they don't even want to be called on the carpet by their own scripture! It reeks of self righteousness, and that's exactly what Jesus warned against.

He also said to let your light filll the room. I wouldn't interpret the following verse as physical command but a spiritual one. We should be able to pray anywhere, but we should also not pray merely to have public praise.

I get your point, that prayer is supposed to be between god and you, not you for to display to the world. But that is the problem with public prayer. It is used to compell others to convert or be complacent. And no, you should not have the right to pray publically anywhere. Especially in a country where there is first ammendment rights.

I'm not following. Where's the connection between evolution and praying in secret?

This has to do with the little known scope's monkey trial, in which evolutionists had to legally sue to get evolution taught in schools. The whole reason why it was not allowed for so long was because the American legislators were worried that if evolution was placed in school, soon prayer would be taken out. Which evidently, it has been. That's the connection. Allowing Creationism and crushing science, ensures ignorant believing children remain ignorant believing adults.

If Parochial schools are reducing the cost of books, by taking students who'd otherwise go to public schools taxing the public school money, then why not? Why should the parents of these children going to parochial schools pay for the public school and parochial school's books with their tax money?

Why should my tax dollars, when I am guaranteed first ammendment rights, go to the funding of Christian education? Why should I allow my tax dollars to go to a system which tosses out science, squelches freedom of speech, and ignores almost 1.5 million years of human history in lieu of brain washing? If Christians want to give a shoddy education to their children, I'm all for it, but I'm sure as hell NOT going to pay for it. Just like I wouldn't DARE ask them to pay for a voucher for me to send my kid to an atheist school. And that's another funny thing, this IS about religious preference, because you don't see parochial schools like Waldorf (pagan) getting voucher funding, but Christian schools do.

No, allowing children time to pray is different from forcing children.

On the contrary, holding a moment of silence compells the other children in school to join or face social ostracization at the hands of their peers and teachers. Didn't you have a freaky Jehovah in your class that got made fun of for refusing to say the pledge? I know my child just last week CRIED because when her public school sang a Praise God song, she didn't want to join in. Her peers mocked her, (one told her during recess she wasn't going with the "angels, but to the ovens") and her music teacher told her she had to join. I have a meeting with the teacher tomorrow in fact, and she's NOT going to be a happy camper when I inform her if she ever does this to my child again I'll get the ACLU on her ass for religious discrimination. Whenever you have a institution of people, which makes an allotment for prayer, the highest population of religionists will socially ostracize the non particpants. This is true of not only Christians in America, but Muslims in Iraq, and a host of other places. It is the secular government's duty to ensure we give no preference, hence, it needs to stay clear of such things as public prayer. And in turn, give church groups tax free status because they must be self sufficient. (Unfortunately, religionists are not satisfied with this, they continually impede upon secular society thinking it is their divine right. What they don't realize is that it is people like me, the atheist, who is protecting them from a future where they are not some day victim of the insanity they cause by majority rule idealism.)

I'm not following what you mean by this. Paul's books consist not only of both intructions for the churches at that specific time and place, but also of instruction that was complete and final.

The point is, Christians don't follow the whole of these instructions because it impedes on their convienance. (They pay no mind however to how their hypocrisy impedes on people not of their ilk.)

The issue here is not the clothes, which are just physical artifacts, but the attempt to change the way they were created.

How do you know? How did you arrive to that interpretation? The law is pretty cut and dry, it doesn't say anything along of the lines of it alluding to changing the way one is created.

I'm not following you here. The roman courts at the time of Paul were ungodly. The courts now are not as bad as the romans but are still not perfect. Giving adivice that Christians should, when in argument, attempt to resolve their problems outside the court is good advice, I think.

It is good advice! And they should follow it through. Like for instance, they should try to keep their christian beliefs out of my secular courts by attempting to legislate their bizarre dogma which impedes on my rights.

Hypocrisy is the false show of gooodness in order to obtain some type of benefit. Neither attempting to bring the supreme court up to par, the school system, nor your taxes have anything to do with hypocrisy, I think.

I got the definition for hypocrisy and posted it above. Anyhow, yes there is hypocrisy in Christians attempting to impose their beliefs on my rights. Take for instance abortion. No where in the bible does it say abortion is wrong, in fact, god demands the killing and also murders countless pregnant women and infants. The majority of Christian tradition was pro-abortion, and even Romans says that any law instituted is appointed by God himself; Christians STILL attempt to insert their interpretation into my legislation. This is a violation of their command to keep from secular courts, this is a violation of scripture, of romans, of a host of things. And yet the still proclaim they are acting on behalf of god, that's hypocrisy.

Those judges and juries are not judging others, persay, but what others have done. The distinction is that a jury does not decide whether a given person is going to hell or is a bad person, but whether that person has committed a crime.

That verse doesn't say anything about hell. In fact, it is talking only about the act of judging in itself. Why would it talk about hell when humanity does not have the ability to damn a fellow human to hell? That doesn't make sense. Judging is judging, and Christians shouldn't part take in it, yet they do continually.

Most likely Luke adapated this saying from an aramaic quotation. In aramaic, from what I've read, the same word for hate also means to put aside.

I understand this, but I also understand that when you couple such quotes with others like: "I came not to bring peace but a sword", "I am the king of division", etc. It opens a whole host of problems concerning the morality of Jesus.

And what is the law, you believe?

It's not a matter of what I believe, but what the Bible says. Jesus identifies the law as not only the ten commandments but the "rod and staff as given by Moses". The rod and staff is the Hebrew euphamism for the whole of the four hundred lay men laws written in deuteronomy. And also concerns how the rabbianic tradition must follow the levitical law.

Jesus gave us the commands in the NT. Why do you suggest the Law(Jewish word for teachings) is the OT? Could Jesus mean what he taught was the Law?

No what I mean is that Jesus said outright that the OT law was forever binding. That such things were mentioned in all of the four gospels, hence, the idea that Christians are free from it, is just a matter of their personal interpretation, and not necessarily an air tight scriptural case.

Your statistic for this are where?

You didn't know this? I actually got it from a parapsych text book my first year at graduate level. I have to remember the exact name of the book. I think it was called: "Parapsycholoy and it's Theological Implications." Until then, please know it's not a ludicrous statement, it actually makes alot of sense if you consider that most forms of divination rose from the Grecco-Romans and Euro-Pagans, and hence have been practiced since. The Church commissioned it's own alchemy staff for 1,500 years! Scrying, automatic writing, tarot, mediumship, etc, that was all common tactics of the wealthy Christian elite. Look at the Medici family, the Templars, etc. They all engaged in it. Most religions engage in this kind of activity, after all; religion is an exercise in trying to gain significance and getting intercessorship between nature/deity and man. So divining is only natural. The Bible itself tells us of consulting prophets, etc. Christians par take it in more on the average because our history is stooped in tradition that revolved around the practice.

 

[okinrus]

Really? Well then, please indulge me. Tell me what contemporary Christian you know who follows the life of Christ to a T?

What I meant by judgmental is this: all of us has personal moral code, be it Christian or another, but few of us fulfill everything our code tells us. We might try to, but we don't.

Tell me what Christian has managed to sell all that they own and give it to the poor for alms.

St. Franscis of Assi.

Then continue to spend the rest of their lives caring for the marginalized, until the very end. This is supposed to be Christian duty,

<em>That</em>, I'd believe, is perfection. When Christ was asked what you should do to be perfect, this was the answer he gave. But there many ways of giving all to the poor and the needy. Remember also that with money, the value attached to it is only given to it by men. All physical things are given at death.

Jesus himself said you can not know him unless you give all that you have to the poor.

I disagree. Christians should give to the poor and needy, certainly. There's a time and place to give everything; there's a time not to. For example, if you gave thousands of dollars to a poor person on the street, how do you know that money will be well-spent on food and not drugs? You don't. Money isn't important than we'd like.

And save me the Mother Theresa bit, because when it was her turn to go she made sure to be hospitalized in France, receiving the best care humanity had to offer, I wonder how much alms that bill could have afforded.

True, but Judas, saying that the oil could be better spent, objected to Mary's gift.

In my summation Protestants can be even worse than Catholics! At least Catholics understand the importance of good works. The rise of protestantism gave us jungle capitalism, and it is the anti-thesis to Christian politics.

Protestants understand the importantance of good works, also. The debate really is on the origin of good works and how good works affects our faith.

I'm not confusing anything. You either call yourself a Christian and attempt to model your life after Christ, and follow what the bible commands, or else you don't. And if you don't while still calling yourself a Christian, then you are not practicing what you claim to believe and preach, that makes a hypocrite.

No, a hypocrite involves a false image, yes, but is different than lying. For example, if I was give to the poor only to maintain some sort of goodstanding with other people, that would be hypocrisy. I, through my hypocrisy, never cared for the poor, and my deeds, while possibly beneficial, nevered merit a good work. Claiming to be a christian is not a good deed, however, and so cannot be hypocritical. Sure, it may be a lie, a half truth, but it's not hypocritical. Moreover, the definition of Christian depends on context also. Informally, I'll use Christian to mean "disciple of Christ," for which Jesus says any on who loves his neighbor as he loves himself, but my theological understanding of the word is different, <em>there</em> I require consent to basic Christian theology.

How do you know? How did you arrive to that interpretation? The law is pretty cut and dry, it doesn't say anything along of the lines of it alluding to changing the way one is created.

To be a sin, crossdressing requires a sinful motive. That is, unless of course you consider crossdressing in of itself to be the sinful motive and sin.

Again, since everyone keeps insisting it's not hypocrisy, I think a definition is in order. "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness." Alright: Christians profess to believe in and follow a Bible which says adultery is a sin, and yet they committ it. Catholics profess to follow a tradition that they violate. This IS hypocrisy.

A more complete explanation of hypocrisy is given by the Catholic Enclopedia:
<blockquote>
Essentially its malice is identical with that of lying; in both cases there is discordance between what a man has in his mind and the simultaneous manifestation of himself. So far as the morality of the act goes, it is unimportant that this difference between the interior and the exterior be set out in words, as happens in formal lies, or be acted out in one's demeanour, as is true of simulation. It is deserving of notice that the mere concealment of one's own sin, unless one be interrogated by legitimate authority, is not straight-way to be accounted hypocrisy. With the purpose of measuring the degree of sinfulness attributable to this vice, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that we must carefully differentiate its two elements: the want of goodness, and the pretence of having it. If a person be so minded as definitely to intend both things, it is of course obvious that he is guilty of grievous sin, for that is only another way of saying that a man lacks the indispensable righteousness which makes him pleasing in the sight of God. If, however, the hypocrite be occupied rather with successfully enacting the role he has assumed, then, even though he be in mortal sin at the time, it will not always follow that the act of counterfeiting is itself a mortal sin.</blockquote>

On the contrary, holding a moment of silence compells the other children in school to join or face social ostracization at the hands of their peers and teachers.

Well, I agree but I'm not too sure if this should be the rule of the Court or just the educational system. In fact, in my school, sometimes study time was given. I don't remember any student praying, but any student has the freedom to worship, any student should be allowed to worship or pray, anywhere he or she wants to without distrupting the class.

Didn't you have a freaky Jehovah in your class that got made fun of for refusing to say the pledge?

The pledge is different from prayer though.

I know my child just last week CRIED because when her public school sang a Praise God song, she didn't want to join in. Her peers mocked her, (one told her during recess she wasn't going with the "angels, but to the ovens")

I didn't say the argument had no merit, but there's got to be some balance. What's difficult is the differentation between a teacher, a single entity, supporting some religion and the school system as organization supporting a religion. As a citizen, a teacher has the right to support a religion and belief. But, as a teacher, she must not lead students into believing a particular religion is supported by the school.

Now back to your child. I don't she's opposed to some kids singing praise God but to mocking. Rather than reneging on the other children's right, isn't it more reasonable for the children who mocked her to be punished.

and her music teacher told her she had to join. I have a meeting with the teacher tomorrow in fact, and she's NOT going to be a happy camper when I inform her if she ever does this to my child again I'll get the ACLU on her ass for religious discrimination.

You could have a case here because having the children "praise the Lord" as part of the lesson-plan is having the school endorse a specific religious belief. But the line must be drawn between the individual and the organization. If a teacher is asked whether he or she believes in God, then the teacher could say yes, saying it was his or her personal belief. Moreso, holidays such as Easter and Christmas are given to the students; not so that the school endorses these beliefs but so that the school gives parents what they want. In matter of speaking, our school system does have quiet hours of prayer, that span weeks instead of minutes.

Whenever you have a institution of people, which makes an allotment for prayer, the highest population of religionists will socially ostracize the non particpants.

Schools sponser dances, football games, and tests., all of ostracize the participants and the non-participants.

I got the definition for hypocrisy and posted it above. Anyhow, yes there is hypocrisy in Christians attempting to impose their beliefs on my rights. Take for instance abortion. No where in the bible does it say abortion is wrong

As a human being, the fetus would be other the other laws.

in fact, god demands the killing and also murders countless pregnant women and infants.

Well, that was because God wanted the Isreals to completely wipe out that tribe.

The majority of Christian tradition was pro-abortion

Although St. Thomas and others adopted the Aristotle's view of the quickening, abortion is condemned by the Didache and the Tertuillian's writing.

and even Romans says that any law instituted is appointed by God himself; Christians STILL attempt to insert their interpretation into my legislation.

hmm, don't know whether Paul said that, or whether Paul is referring only to God's laws. There really ought to be no need for interpretation of any religious texts. As murder is wrong, so too should abortion.

I understand this, but I also understand that when you couple such quotes with others like: "I came not to bring peace but a sword", "I am the king of division", etc.

I don't Jesus is described as the "King of division". But, from what I can tell, not only is Jesus telling the future--that there would be sufferring--but that he's not one of the false prophets told about in Jeremiah who say "peace, peace when there is no sin."

No what I mean is that Jesus said outright that the OT law was forever binding. That such things were mentioned in all of the four gospels, hence, the idea that Christians are free from it, is just a matter of their personal interpretation, and not necessarily an air tight scriptural case.

No, I doubt Jesus meant the OT in is use of Law, here. In John's gospel, at the last supper, Jesus adds a commandment.

You didn't know this? I actually got it from a parapsych text book my first year at graduate level. I have to remember the exact name of the book. I think it was called: "Parapsycholoy and it's Theological Implications."

It seems reasonable for it to be true in the US, being most of the population is Christian. Elsewhere, I can't be so certain. I'd group all of the pagan religions as some sort of sorcery.

 

[cole grey]

OKINRUS says, "I'd group all of the pagan religions as some sort of sorcery."

I think this might be an unfair statement. I don't know that all pagans participate in magical rites. I know there is supposed to be a difference between wiccans and witches.
I do know of christians who participate in magical rites, by giving money away for the purpose of receiving it back again multiplied. This magical rite is often encouraged by churches, although most churches warn against magic.
I'm just saying your statement might be going too far. Even if you wanted to say pagans were praising a false God in a ritual, I wouldn't call it sorcery unless they were trying to affect the material world somehow.