Since we've gotten told to stop talking generally about religion twice in the Homosexuality and Religion thread and were told that, if we want to talk generally about religion, we need to make a new thread, I have made a new thread.
Full disclosure: I am an agnostic atheist and anti-theist, but I'm very interested in theology and religion.
Mod Edit: All right, there are a couple of ground rules here:
- This is not a thread for mindless bashing of religion or of atheism/agnosticism etc. All view points are welcome here. Let's have a civil debate.
- Religion is a volatile subject. Please don't post here if you can't manage a civil discussion with viewpoints you disagree with. There will be no tolerance for people who can't keep the tone light hearted.
- There is no one true answer for this thread. Don't try to force out opposing voices.
edited 9th Feb '14 1:01:31 PM by Madrugada
For a society to function, members need to cooperate.
For effective cooperation, members need to understand and trust each other.
Someone who say one thing while knowing it to be false for his/her own good, or pretend to be on your side but jump ship at the first opportunity, is threatening society more than an external enemy.
As a result, people hate hypocrites.
Edited by jawal on Feb 27th 2023 at 5:43:12 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurtGenerally the problem with criticizing hypocrisy is that it's often done to criticize the preaching rather than the practice.
Leviticus 19:34Right, hypocrisy is acting (or not acting) in a way contradictory to your own claims. So expecting someone else to go to church every Sunday while not doing so yourself would also be hypocrisy.
I think it also involves a moral claim, though. So if I expect a Christian to go to church every Sunday because that's what a good Christian is supposed to do, but don't go myself because I'm not a Christian, that's not hypocrisy.
Edited by Redmess on Feb 28th 2023 at 11:55:57 AM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesHypocrite Has a Point is a thing for a reason.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian![]()
![]()
![]()
"There's something truly awesome about how one of the groups Jesus rages against the most are religious hypocrites like the Pharisees."
Because comparisons are often made between the ancient Pharasees and contemporary Evangelists (who share certain behaviors in common).
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.It's probably best to avoid calling someone a Pharisee when you want to call them a hypocrite though.
The Pharisee movement is the direct ancestor to modern Rabbinical Judaism and at the time, they spent a lot of effort delegitimizing every messiah figure they were aware of (because there were a hell of a lot of people claiming to be the messiah) because 1) the messiahs were all demanding huge changes to Jewish belief and traditions and 2) they really didn't want Rome paying close attention to the Jewish religion and trying to force syncretization on it again.
The Sadducees, the other major sect at the time, were in favour of moving closer to the Roman style of things, but they were wiped out when the Temple was destroyed. (The Essenes were cloistered off on their own)
The Pharisees actually had pretty logical and reasonable ways to behave in the context of the time and it's not great to just stamp them with the "Hypocrite" label, especially since they're the reason Jewish traditions survived Rome flattening Israel at all.
The thing about hypocrisy is, it's not just failure to practice what you preach. EVERYBODY does that! We think all sorts of things are wrong and say they're wrong, even though we occasionally do them. That doesn't disqualify us from calling them wrong, it just means we're ordinary fallible humans who wish we could consistently (or even usually) be as good as our ideals.
Hypocrisy is not even believing in what you preach. It's not preaching something I suck at living up to—it's preaching something I think is untrue but that makes me look good, gives me power, or keeps the rubes in line. And that's both a more serious charge, and a tougher one to just infer about someone whose moral claims I don't necessarily like.
I just want to mention about the "jewels before dogs" passage mentioned last page, the common interpretation of that is that Jesus was testing her faith or using her belief as a lesson to the others around him because it's contrary to the many other tales of Jesus openly and willingly befriending and helping the outcasts of society (like women, prostitutes, lepers, the possessed, tax collectors, Romans, and Samaritans).
Related to women's issues, similar to how Islamic rules towards women were progressive for their time, the Old Testament rules about women were also similarly progressive for their time. The laws about having to marry a woman that you had sex with, for example, was a rule meant to make sure that women would have at least some form of financial safety and compensation, since non-virgins were often deemed to be Defiled Forever. The laws about marrying your brother's widow were similarly made to make sure widows weren't left destitute and abandoned by society. Women being ritually impure when they menstruated meant in practice that women got to go hang out together in a communal tent for a few days/a week and get a break from childrearing and their families when they were likely in a great deal of pain.
While the Israelites were pretty insular and bloodline was a big deal, they still had fair treatment for some converts. A prostitute helps save Joshua's spies in Jericho, and in turn God spares her from the city's destruction (her house remained unscathed when the walls fell) and she presumably joined the Israelites since the rest of Jericho was wiped out.
The Book of Ruth is a book about familial love transcending nationality, and accepting a convert into the Israelite community. Notably, Ruth's bloodline begets David and eventually Jesus himself.
Related to our current topic, there's speculation/theories that Jesus himself might have identified as a Pharisee at some point in his life or that at least the people writing down his teachings were part of the Pharisees, and Jesus' harsh criticism of them was coming from a place of frustration in their unwillingness to change.
Edited by PhiSat on Feb 28th 2023 at 1:04:05 PM
Oissu!The story as it is written does not support the interpretation of it being a Secret Test of Character. Neither it is the first time Jesus lost his temper against people, animals or in a notable case a Fig tree that he cursed because it did not lay figs when it requested, despite it not being the right season.
However, I am not a professor in the subject, and I did not read the bible in its original language (Nor in English) so I may be missing subtle shades of meaning.
Edited by jawal on Feb 28th 2023 at 9:14:45 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurtWhat is the difference between dragons and salamanders?
Come on! Let's bless them all until we get fershnickered!Dragons are reptiles and Salamanders are amphibians
. so Dragons have earholes and Salamanders don't
Edited by Gaiazun on Mar 3rd 2023 at 11:47:23 AM

I'm not saying it's necessarily good. I'm just saying that in and of itself I can't actually see why it's particularly bad in isolation.