God I love this article about religious hypocrisy

Post Reply New Topic

There are many problems with the moral framework of Christianity. For one, the notion of "inheriting" sin is absurd and, if I'm not mistaken, certain schools of Christianity like to regard all sins as equal or, at least, equally hell-binding. I, for one, think there's a huge gap between the sin of murder and the "sin" of suicidal ideation (according to Catholics, that's a skin) and even a further gap between the sin of murder and the "sin" of not "accepting Christ" (whatever the f*ck that means).

Furthermore, saying you accept Christ into your life after consistently doing egregious things while an unwise virtuous person dies for not "accepting Christ" strikes as unfair to anyone with even the slightest inclination of a moral conscience.

The rules in it no longer applied, it was not tossed out like garbage.

And, seriously, if you guys are going to bring up the shellfish thing as if it were a rational argument, perhaps you should be more careful about calling something a 'desperate rationalization'.


To be clear, I'm defending my religion, not hypocrites who make my religion look bad.

You don't have to be an atheist to get pissed off at that type.

And I'm not. I'm Agnostic.

And yeah, I find so many ruthless born again idiot a**hole hypocritical monkey faced jerks, it easily characterizes the worshipers. I personally think if you're a born again, NOT a hypocrite, and a stand up fellow, you're in the minority.

I noticed this extremist, willfully ret*d behavior all the time with evangelicals, and sort of with baptists. Catholics are usually more reasonable in their behavior, and I've run into a lot of lutheran scientists who at least give Darwin credit as great thinker and naturalist. They still have that wonky bent in their thinking, but I do my best to just over look it and enjoy other aspects of their personality.

I normally wouldn't post something like this, but I'm sick and infuriated with this, "I believe, and I'll talk about ad nauseum, but I don't practice when it doesn't suit me, and I get defensive when it's pointed out, but you have to believe my bull s*** anyway or you'll burn for eternity, for reasons that make no friggin' sense," mentality. Stop and think about it. It's just obnoxious.

I thought you were "lumping me in" with the crooks I see on TV hawking trinkets for donations. I hope you haven't.

I tended to ask the Bart Simpson questions when I did try to fit in with a church. Bart asks stuff like "can a robot with a human brain go to Heaven...if I lose my leg is it waiting for me in Heaven," etc. Not those exact questions, but things that required more that quoting a Bible passage. I was asked to pursue those interests on my own...

I asked if people really thought about the "process" of going to Heaven. Is it like a stargate? Some kind of journey somewhere? Most hadn't even really thought about it! I believe as the Jesus said, the dead know nothing, it is as a sleep. They close their eyes in death and open them in the resurrection.

Do you believe that everyone else should believe as you do?

I perfectly understand Christians who believe the New Testament takes precedence when it contradicts the Old Testament. What is the point of Christianity if the New Testament cannot overrule the Old?

Absolutely, I believe all bars should have at least one TV showing Star`Trek during every Super Bowl. I watch the Puppy Bowl on Animal Planet anyway.

As far as believing that everyone else should believe as I do, well, yes. Shall I hope others believe what I perceive to be wrong or incorrect? Of course not!

Remember, this is not about some easily provable fact like how many calories are in a spoon of sugar, rather it's sorting through evidence and testimony. Evidence such as a stone marker that says "This road belongs to King Herod" or a bowl that says "House of David, King of Israel". Written testimony from the Roman empire's scribes that were the "security cameras" of their day, writing down what they saw happen in the town square. They followed Jesus, recording what he said and did. They had to be accurate, because the penalty for fabrication by a scribe was death, you didn't lie to Herod or Caesar. The Jews had scribes too, and their writings confirm the empire's scribes . I have not seen these in person, as they are only recently being translated fully for the public. But the oldest known Bible is online at codexsinaiticus.org, with photos of the pages and full translation.

Everyone expects others to believe as they do, whether they admit it or not. It's whether or not one can engage in discussion, or simply fall into arguments about pettiness that determines validity.

I think I have a perfectly fine conception of what supercedes means. and I never said the moral imperitive ends, obviously it doesn't. what I want to know is WHY it doesn't end, if the old law is cast away?

and what is shrine prostitution?

I never said I was perfect. I do contend, however, that I don't need either the threat of damnation nor the promise of reward to do what is right and strive for it. and I don't need to apologize to some sky fairy every time I falter and claim that I'll never do it again, because I know there is the possibility I will, as that is the nature of our beast, but that has nothing to do with religion or original sin at all.

huh? What do you mean?

huh? What do you mean?[/quote

Using the term "Xtians" is rather disrespectful when referring in to "Christians".

If referring to X-Men, it's probably OK,..

X is a valid abbreviation to Christ that has been used at least since 1600s . And I'd rather not call the name of your god in vain while criticizing you.

Xtians are silly.

Well monkeyman, when someone tells you it's offensive to them, it's offensive to them.

Last edited by shrox on 31 Aug 2011, 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Monkeyman was a mean thing to say. I am sorry I insulted you.

I take offense to that one. Chimps and humans are apes, not a monkeys.

You have the right to be offended.

I have the right to do stuff that offends you when it is not against the site's rules. Since we are talking about an abbreviation that is not derogatory or anything (and was introduced by Christian scholars no less) then I wouldn't say it is against the rules, so I might still do it in the future although I don't really have a conscious effort to use it or not to be honest.

damn, you beat me to it.

the x has actually been around a lot longer than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas#Usage ... 2Christ.22