Religion
Related: About this forumToday's sermon is on hypocrisy.
First, what is hypocrisy? To discuss that, we must first define our terms. So I asked Google, and found this, which I feel is far better than I could write on my own.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-hypocrisy.html
Consider the first definition, which talks of actions versus stated beliefs. When Next Gingrich criticized Bill Clinton for having a sexual relationship out of marriage, Gingrich himself was actually pursuing his own extramarital affair. A classic example.
The second definition takes place when we fail to recognize our own failings. It is often the situation where we point out the flaws in others while failing to point out, or failing to recognize, our own flaws.
Thoughts?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)See, there's this guy. He keeps saying he wants to dialogue with me, but the conversation is always unidirectional. He wants to sit back and pick apart everyone else's beliefs, but will never consent to put any of his on the chopping block. Then, when someone got bored with this routine and refused to discuss their beliefs any further, he cried foul and bellyached about it, as if their refusal to share were a personal affront.
Kinda sounds like hypocrisy to me.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Others may have a different opinion. Agreed?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Anything's possible.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)which specific beliefs does this person pick apart? If it happens so often it should be easy for an accuser to find citations.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)and then never actually do anything to foster it themselves, despite being given multiple chances by multiple people.
Instead, they insult all who attempt to do so, by calling them members of a "choir" or some such ridiculous childish nonsense.
They go on to try and police what others say - insinuating that those with opposing opinions have a "commandment" about doing so, rather than talking with the person and finding out WHY they are opposed.
But don't worry, gil. None of this is about you. It never is. You're perfect, and besides, even if some behavior of yours might possibly be construed to be hypocritical, you're really only being forced to do it because others deserve it, right?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But to do so, one must recognize that the beam is there, correct?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Have I ever tried to police what you post? Nope. I simply offer my opinion.
So I'd happily comment on those things and acknowledge them if I had done them.
Your turn. That beam is really prominent.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And it is interesting to me how what is said by you privately and what is admitted by you publicly can differ.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)In that case, I stand by everything I've said about you.
EVERYTHING.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Nice avoidance on your part.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I guess you are in a position to judge everyone else and issue a sermon.
What a great Christian!
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But, to clarify, we are all hypocrites at one time or another.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)While smacking down anyone else who points out yours?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The private messages as well. If you cannot find them, I have saved them.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)While you lecture everyone here on hypocrisy, you now issue threats to intimidate others.
Such "Christian" behavior. My, my.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Revealing indeed. So does your private behavior differ? Speaking to the point, of course.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I'm not going to stop speaking my mind. You can't silence me, and I know that burns you up.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I am asking about what you have said to me, as opposed to what you say publicly. That is not a threat.
Nice try at stopping debate.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Apparently that's what good Christians like yourself do.
I've been trying to debate, but you keep making things personal. Congratulations for perfectly illustrating my first comment in this thread.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I can only guess that your repetition of the word threat is designed to accomplish something.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But I won't stop doing it.
Please, have your precious last word. I know you need it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)You keep speaking of "removing the beam". Listen to what you are advising.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I can dig up some examples if you need them?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Cartoonist
(7,326 posts)Why do you have to drag the Bible into the discussion?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)It's a loan word.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Every language borrows words. But the behavior remains the same no matter the language.
msongs
(67,496 posts)Voltaire2
(13,257 posts)that if condition A requires property F or M that A is satisfied by (M and not F) but A is not satisfied by (not M and F)?
Thanks.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Or, what specifically do you disagree with?
Voltaire2
(13,257 posts)if condition A requires property F or M that A is satisfied by (M and not F) but A is not satisfied by (not M and F)?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I know it when I see it!
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I am starting to feel as if I need a helmet and shield.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Mariana
(14,863 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Mariana
(14,863 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Feel free to respond.
Voltaire2
(13,257 posts)statement.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And the questioner has not responded, but feel free to respond if you wish.
Voltaire2
(13,257 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Or continue as you have been.
Mariana
(14,863 posts)Either you redefined it, as you said in post #33, or it's exactly the same. Which is it?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Being imperfect. So when I ask if you have ever sinned, I am also asking if you are imperfect.
Mariana
(14,863 posts)is what makes one imperfect, then the question can't apply to me, because I have no faith.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)So the question remains. Are you perfect, or do you have some slight faults?
Voltaire2
(13,257 posts)has sinned.
Mariana
(14,863 posts)to come near to the altar, because their presence would desecrate his sanctuary, according to the story.
The Lord said to Moses, Say to Aaron: For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food, yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.'" So Moses told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites. Leviticus 21 : 16-24
Voltaire2
(13,257 posts)humans, unlike the angry v2 god in the OT.
But it remains to be explained how sins and imperfections are equivalent.
Let he who has no pimples cast the first stone?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Olympic caliber.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)They are trying to hold you to higher degree of precision in your language than you are willing to provide.
Voltaire2
(13,257 posts)sins and imperfections are equivalent was nonsense.
See? We do agree on some things!