In this thread we discuss personal encounters with hypocrites

[Jesus Lied For You]

Christians will always disappoint you. That's why we don't put our faith in people, but in Christ.

Faith n. - firm belief in something for which there is no proof

With enough faith, we may also believe in Allah.

If you have so much faith. Prove it by drinking a pint of arsenic. According to Jesus, in His faith you may drink any poison and it will not hurt you.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." -- Mark 16:17-18

So, do you really have faith that Jesus tells the truth? That Jesus wouldn't lie to you?

[jbrown84]

WHERE IN THAT PASSAGE does it say that that applies to every Christian? That's ridiculous.

[Jesus Lied For You]

WHERE IN THAT PASSAGE does it say that that applies to every Christian? That's ridiculous.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe..." Mark 16:17

Continue reading,

"...In my name shall they (the believers) cast out devils, They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

You believe in Jesus? So, you're a believer, right?

Show your faith!

[jbrown84]

There is nothing there that says all these things will happen to every Christian. They are merely examples of miracles that will happen. Paul is bitten by a poisonous snake and miraculously doesn't die.

[Jesus Lied For You]

There is nothing there that says all these things will happen to every Christian. They are merely examples of miracles that will happen. Paul is bitten by a poisonous snake and miraculously doesn't die.

Nowhere does it read only some of these things will happen to only a few select believers!

"And these signs shall follow them that believe"

Plainly read without any distortion to context and it proves you have no faith in your invisible god.

[jbrown84]

It doesn't tell believers to risk their lives by drinking poison, so unless he said it applies to every believer, then there is no reason to test God. There are plenty of places in scripture that warn against doing that.

[itsgallagher]

Firstly, allow me to define hypocrisy

Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

Or broadly put in layman's terms a pretense of having a religious principle that one does not really possess.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" -- 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)

That all scripture is inspired by God because the scripture says so (circular reasoning) means He respectively inspired James in his penning verse 3:15 of 1 Peter. Ultimately, one might make the leap to conclude God, Himself, therefore "penned" 1 Peter 3:15 therefore He (God) is instructing his followers not to refuse debate, but rather answer to those whom ask.

I'll presume you believe the Bible to be the perfect Word of God and therefore assume all of the instructions He has subsequently inspired. For you to be endowed the title Christian should you not heed to His (Christ's) words?

Does not a cooker cook? Does not a player play? Does not a supervisor supervise?

Why then should a Christian not do as Christ demanded of Himself and His followers while professing to do just that? Perhaps our measurements of hypocrisy are debatable, but the definition and instruction are not. Enlighten me on what you would consider the highest degree of hypocrisy. Is he claiming to be Christian and then murdering any more/less of a hypocrite than he who refuses to debate? What about he/she whom divorce*?

God has clearly spoken His word pertaining to the matter, perhaps you'd like to endulge me on how a Christian not obeying His word is anything but hypocritical of himself. Now, by no means was my post intended to incite a debate, but rather to discuss the hypocrisy I've encountered.


*Approximately 80% of the United States profess to be Christian and yet roughly 50% of couples in the United States get divorced (Note: There are no discernible distinctions between the divorce rate among Christians verses "non-believers" despite all the support from Churches, Christian friends, and prayer)

Yet the Word of God reads:

"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -- Matthew 19:6

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -- Mark 10:9

Although your presentation is good, your point is lacking in any fundamental truths. First you reference ‘circular reasoning’ without going in to detail. You seem to be saying/asking that the Bible is the word of God “just” because it said so. The simple answer is yes it is, but not without faith. There are different degrees of faith to be applied to the word of God, none of which should be separated from the real truth. I think it is safe to say that everyone who believes that the Bible is the word of God also believes that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in April 1965. Why? Because some historian said so... I would go further to say those same people believe we landed a man on the moon in the summer of 1969 because the media and NASA said we did. Were any of us there to witness these two events? No. Then why do we believe it? Faith, pure and simple. Secondly, you use an analogy to describe hypocrisy to the highest degree by Christians who don’t demonstrate Christ’s attributes. In your analogy you use the cooker, the player and the supervisor. In order for your argument to be valid the cooker would have to cook something perfect all the time, the player would have to play to perfection every time, and the supervisor would never have a problem with those he supervises. For example; if a chef cooked a meal and presented to two people in a restaurant and one person loved it and the other didn’t, then the one who was not satisfied could say “and you call yourself a cook”. Does this make the chef a hypocrite? No. Although I enjoy reading what you write, your arguments foundation would crumble under the slightest of scrutiny.

[Jesus Lied For You]

I think it is safe to say that everyone who believes that the Bible is the word of God also believes that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in April 1965. Why? Because some historian said so... I would go further to say those same people believe we landed a man on the moon in the summer of 1969 because the media and NASA said we did. Were any of us there to witness these two events? No. Then why do we believe it? Faith, pure and simple.

The assassination of President Lincoln was documented by inumerable dispassionate observers who lived during Lincoln's assassination. This was decidedly not the case with Jesus, Whose existence was attested by no secular writer of His time.

But there is a second distinction which, to me, is the most significant: Although Lincoln led an unusually eventful and productive life, there is no historical claim that Lincoln stood the laws of physics on their head. For example, no one ever claimed that he rose from the dead after his assassination.

"Extraordinary claims," said Carl Sagan, "require extraordinary evidence". So while I might accept someone's word that Lincoln was born in Kentucky, I would not believe someone's assertion that he was born of a virgin in Kentucky. The more farfetched the claim, the more overwhelming and irrefutable the evidence must be. Since none of Christ's contemporaries even bothered to mention His name in their historical accounts, the level of proof necessary to document His "miracles" is woefully inadequate. In fact, it's absolutely nonexistent.

[MadMonk]

Wow, this thread has risen from the dead!

Oh, and Lincoln died in 1865.

[Jesus Lied For You]

Wow, this thread has risen from the dead!

Oh, and Lincoln died in 1865.

It seems I've been targeted by the moderators as they proof-read my comments prior to it being uploaded. Unfortunately, Months ago, I had written a response to this only to never have my response posted.

They've been waiting 2,000+ years for their Messiah, they can wait a few months for a response.

[metro]

I think you're missing the whole concept of faith Lied. If you had all the "evidence" you needed, it wouldn't be hard to believe or have faith. "Faith" is believing in things you can't always see or explain. If God intended for us to know it all, there would not be a purpose for the ONE that does know it all (God).

[Dark Jedi]

Faith is believin what you know ain't true. -Samuel Clemens

[Jesus Lied For You]

I think you're missing the whole concept of faith Lied. If you had all the "evidence" you needed, it wouldn't be hard to believe or have faith. "Faith" is believing in things you can't always see or explain. If God intended for us to know it all, there would not be a purpose for the ONE that does know it all (God).

I'm not missing the point, I just refuse to accept faith as a means of living.

[Jesus Lied For You]

First you reference ‘circular reasoning’ without going in to detail.

Need I really go into detail about how the Bible utilizes circular reasoning?

You use an analogy to describe hypocrisy to the highest degree by Christians who don’t demonstrate Christ’s attributes. In your analogy you use the cooker, the player and the supervisor. In order for your argument to be valid the cooker would have to cook something perfect all the time, the player would have to play to perfection every time, and the supervisor would never have a problem with those he supervises. For example; if a chef cooked a meal and presented to two people in a restaurant and one person loved it and the other didn’t, then the one who was not satisfied could say “and you call yourself a cook”. Does this make the chef a hypocrite? No. Although I enjoy reading what you write, your arguments foundation would crumble under the slightest of scrutiny.

The cook needn't be perfect because being a cook doesn't require perfection nor is serving a luke warm served meal punishable by eternal torment. If a meal is prepared wrong, the chef isn't going to "hell". It should also be noted, the chef doesn't wander aimlessly into the dining area preaching the blessings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He probably wouldn't judge his fellow customers for not being a good as cook as he nor does he approach your doorstep asking if you know the FSM. Sound familiar?

[OKBound]

It amazes me how "knowledgable" some people become about the Bible when it suits their agenda. Their weapon of choice is using scripture from the Bible, a book that they reject as being the Word of God and deny it's authority as a guide to living a righteous life and what happens when we sin AND are unrepentent.

Jbrown84 has been admirable in his response to you. I'm sure he knew he wouldn't sway you, but to let others see the foolishness of the attempt to fish for responses.

How's this for scripture citing:
Proverbs 26:4-5 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

In this case, Jbrown84 has not allowed you to go unrefuted.

I do feel for you and the anger you have but instead of making you feel stronger, it will only continue to weaken and consume you. I know because I almost let it comsume me, my disappointment in others grew into such hatred that I was truly miserable. Then I realized that many of us do really have good intentions and just don't follow through. In order to avoid this, when I say I'm going to pray for someone, I do it right then and there. And guess what, I am going to pray for you, RIGHT NOW:

"Father, I thank you for the priviledge we have in coming before your throne, unafraid, lifting up our petitions and praises to you in the name of your Son, Jesus. I lift up JLFY and pray that whatever has caused this person to have such bitterness and anger that you would put in his path someone that can show him the way to the Great Physician, who CAN heal ALL past hurts and create a peace in the heart that goes beyond understanding. Having personally experienced anger and bitterness in my life, I can empathize with him/her in being disappointed in others and their actions, or in this case, inaction. I also know how detrimental that feeling can be emotionally as well as physically. I pray that he/she will find the peace they so desperatly seek.
It's in Jesus Christ's Holy Name I pray, Amen!"

Proverbs 14:30 A heart at peace give life to the body, but envy* rots the bones.
*Anger, Bitterness

[NE Oasis]

I am going to pray for you, RIGHT NOW:

"Father, I thank you for the priviledge we have in coming before your throne, unafraid, lifting up our petitions and praises to you in the name of your Son, Jesus. I lift up JLFY and pray that whatever has caused this person to have such bitterness and anger that you would put in his path someone that can show him the way to the Great Physician, who CAN heal ALL past hurts and create a peace in the heart that goes beyond understanding. Having personally experienced anger and bitterness in my life, I can empathize with him/her in being disappointed in others and their actions, or in this case, inaction. I also know how detrimental that feeling can be emotionally as well as physically. I pray that he/she will find the peace they so desperatly seek.
It's in Jesus Christ's Holy Name I pray, Amen!"

News flash for JLFW - nothing you can do or say can prevent that prayer from reaching God. It's already there, in fact it's been sent again by me. I generally avoid the theological posts, because I'm not very eloquent. I'm thankful that OKBound is willing (and very capable) to post a Christ centered response.

[Jesus Lied For You]

It amazes me how "knowledgable" some people become about the Bible when it suits their agenda.

Define what you suppose my agenda is. We'll begin the debate there.

Their weapon of choice is using scripture from the Bible, a book that they reject as being the Word of God and deny it's authority as a guide to living a righteous life and what happens when we sin AND are unrepentent.

How else would you demonstrate the Quran to be NOT the Word of Allah rather than using the Quran itself? I liken the reference of Scripture to the reference of Christmas stories -- A parent might tell his youngster to be good because if he doesn't Santa might not leave him any toys. The parent assuredly doesn't believe in Santa Clause. So why does the parent reference ole' St. Nick?

How's this for scripture citing:
Proverbs 26:4-5 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

You're implying that I'm a fool.

How's this for scripture citing:

"If you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell." -- Matthew 5:22 (NCV)

In this case, Jbrown84 has not allowed you to go unrefuted.

Despite what you may "believe", my response has gone completely unrefuted. There's no way around this, my friend!

And guess what, I am going to pray for you, RIGHT NOW.

Great. Nothing fails like a good old prayer. Hey, pray for the victims of Hurrican Dean. Pray that not a single person perishes due to the storm.

[Martin]

you're implying that i'm a fool.

how's this for scripture citing:

"if you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell." -- matthew 5:22 (ncv)

your claim is incorrect on several levels.

first, the words from proverbs and matthew rendered into english as 'fool' are not the same word. the hebrew word for 'fool' in the quote from proverbs is 'keseel.' in the lxx, this word is translated into greek as 'aphron' which means 'without understanding.' this does not carry the same negative connotation as calling someone a 'fool' in english. in the passage from matthew, the greek word translated to 'fool' is 'moros', which means foolish, impious, godless. this word does not have negative connotations on its own, either. so, the word used for 'fool' in proverbs is not the same word used in matthew. and even if it were, it would not have the same logical equivalency as calling somebody a 'fool' in english. in fact, the word 'moros' is used to call people 'fools' or 'foolish' throughout the new testament and jesus himself calls the pharisees 'fools' with this same word. there must therefore be more to the passage you quoted from matthew than simply using the word 'moros' that would put an individual at risk of hell fire. so...

second, you have taken the verse from matthew out of context. the full passage is:

but i tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. again, anyone who says to his brother, 'raca,' is answerable to the sanhedrin. but anyone who says, 'you fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

looking at the entire thought, the context is of one person who is angry at another. the word 'raca' is an aramaic word transliterated into greek and essentially means 'fool', but with a negative connotation. according to the passage, one using this word would have to answer to the sanhedrin, the jewish authorities. therefore, in this setting, one could skirt the law by calling somebody a 'fool' in another language. the point is, that if one strikes out in anger then he is at risk because of the status of his heart and not because of his word choice. it doesn't appear to me as if okbound's quoting of proverbs was done out of anger and therefore does not fit the context in the passage you quoted from matthew.

however, it does seem that you are proving okbound's point by using scripture to make your argument and subsequently misinterpreting it so that it fits neatly into your retort. good try, though.

-M

[jbrown84]

OKbound, thanks for the defense. Clearly several of us have refuted him, and he will not admit it.

Not only does he take things out of context, but he has to use bizarre, rare translations to find wording to fit his arguments.

[Easy180]

Hypocrite alert....I'm beginning to think all those who bash gay marriage are all gay themselves....I see a clear pattern now

Guy spoke out against Clinton and helped lead the charge for his impeachment

At least he wasn't doing it in a public restroom Mr Craig


Under fire from leaders of his own party, Idaho Sen. Larry Craig on Tuesday said the only thing he had done wrong was to plead guilty after a complaint of lewd conduct in a men's room. He declared, "I am not gay. I never have been gay."

"I did nothing wrong at the Minneapolis airport," he said at a news conference with his wife, Suzanne, at his side.

Craig entered his plea several weeks after an undercover police officer in the Minneapolis arrested him and issued a complaint that said the three-term senator had engaged in actions "often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct."

The airport incident occurred June 11. Craig signed his plea papers on Aug. 1, and word of the events surfaced Monday. The senator issued a statement Monday night that said, "In hindsight, I should have pled not guilty."

He repeated that assertion at the Idaho news conference. "In June, I overreacted and made a poor decision," he said. "I chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge in hopes of making it go away."

Craig was at times defiant, at others apologetic.

"Please let me apologize to my family, friends and staff and fellow Idahoans for the cloud placed over Idaho," he said. "I did nothing wrong at the Minneapolis airport. I did nothing wrong, and I regret the decision to plead guilty and the sadness that decision has brought on my wife, on my family, friends, staff and fellow Idahoans."

The conservative three-term senator, who has represented Idaho in Congress for more than a quarter-century, is up for re-election next year. He said he would announce next month whether he would run again.

Craig, who has voted against gay marriage, finds his political future in doubt in the wake of the charges, which have drawn national attention.

Craig, 62, has faced rumors about his sexuality since the 1980s, but allegations that he had engaged in gay sex have never been substantiated. Craig has denied the assertions, which he calls ridiculous.

The scandal had already taken a political toll. On Monday, Craig resigned from a prominent role with Republican Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. He had been one of Romney's top Senate supporters, serving as a liaison for the campaign since February.

Asked about Craig, Romney said, "He's disappointed the American people."

"Yeah, I think it reminds us of Mark Foley and Bill Clinton. I think it reminds us of the fact that people who are elected to public office continue to disappoint, and they somehow think that if they vote the right way on issues of significance or they can speak a good game, that we'll just forgive and forget," Romney said on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company."

Foley is a former Republican lawmaker who resigned nearly a year ago after being confronted with the computer messages he sent to male teenage pages who had worked on Capitol Hill. Clinton is the former president accused in congressional impeachment proceedings of lying about an affair with a White House intern.

According to a Hennepin County, Minn., court docket, Craig pleaded guilty to a disorderly conduct charge on Aug. 8, with the court dismissing a charge of gross misdemeanor interference to privacy.

The court docket said Craig paid $575 in fines and fees and was put on unsupervised probation for a year. A sentence of 10 days in the county workhouse was stayed.

According to the prosecutor's complaint, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, airport police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who was investigating allegations of sexual conduct in airport restrooms, went into a stall shortly after noon on June 11 and closed the door.

Minutes later, the officer saw Craig gazing into his stall through the crack between the stall door and the frame.

After a man in the adjacent stall left, Craig entered it and put his roller bag against the front of the stall door, "which Sgt. Karsnia's experience has indicated is used to attempt to conceal sexual conduct by blocking the view from the front of the stall," said the complaint, which was dated June 25.

The complaint said Craig then tapped his right foot several times and moved it closer to Karsnia's stall and then moved it to where it touched Karsnia's foot. Karsnia recognized that "as a signal often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct," the complaint said.

Craig then passed his left hand under the stall divider into Karsnia's stall with his palms up and guided it along the divider toward the front of the stall three times, the complaint said.

The officer then showed his police identification under the divider and pointed toward the exit "at which time the defendant exclaimed `No!'" the complaint said.

The Aug. 8 police report says that Craig had handed the arresting officer a business card that identified him as a member of the Senate.

"What do you think about that?" Craig is alleged to have said, according to the report.

Craig joins other GOP senators facing ethical and legal troubles.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, is under scrutiny for his relationship with a contractor who helped oversee a renovation project that more than doubled the size of the senator's home.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., acknowledged that his phone number appeared in records of a Washington-area business that prosecutors have said was a front for prostitution.

Craig, a rancher and a member of the National Rifle Association, lives in Eagle, Idaho, near the capital of Boise. He was a member of the House for 10 years before winning election to the Senate in 1990. He was re-elected in 1996 and 2002.

Last fall, Craig called allegations from a gay-rights activist that he's had homosexual relationships "completely ridiculous."

___

Associated Press writers Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis, Matthew Daly in Washington

[Karried]

I'm not an expert on gay signals, but it seems like a pretty vague charge to me.. tapping your foot and passing your hand under the stall?

How can anyone prove that he wanted sex, given just those clues?

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

I'm not an expert on gay signals, but it seems like a pretty vague charge to me.. tapping your foot and passing your hand under the stall?

How can anyone prove that he wanted sex, given just those clues?

No kidding...If somebody did that to me, I'd just assume that they were looking for a "low five" on their Alli-induced...





Nah...I won't finish that thought. Not with the userID I picked.

[Karried]

lol... maybe he was out of toilet paper!

[Easy180]

I'm not an expert on gay signals, but it seems like a pretty vague charge to me.. tapping your foot and passing your hand under the stall?

How can anyone prove that he wanted sex, given just those clues?

Now this is a clear man law violation...Can actually get you killed in some countries

"Minutes later, the officer saw Craig gazing into his stall through the crack between the stall door and the frame."

Another violation is the simple fact he sat down on the stall next to the officer...Man law forbids side by side sitting down on toilets....Always always leave a stall in between and when there isn't....You come in wash your hands and stand outside until the bidness is completed

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Now this is a clear man law violation...Can actually get you killed in some countries

"Minutes later, the officer saw Craig gazing into his stall through the crack between the stall door and the frame."

Another violation is the simple fact he sat down on the stall next to the officer...Man law forbids side by side sitting down on toilets....Always always leave a stall in between and when there isn't....You come in wash your hands and stand outside until the bidness is completed

Unless you've been in the military, in which case it's perfectly normal to start up a conversation with the person next to you.