Today's sermon is on hypocrisy.

[guillaumeb]

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.

The Bible calls hypocrisy a sin. There are two forms hypocrisy can take: that of professing belief in something and then acting in a manner contrary to that belief, and that of looking down on others when we ourselves are flawed.

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]

1. I think I know what you're saying.

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]

5. You might call what you want dialogue.

Others may have a different opinion. Agreed?

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. Others might wrong?

Anything's possible.

[guillaumeb]

28. Speaking of your claim here,

which specific beliefs does this person pick apart? If it happens so often it should be easy for an accuser to find citations.

[trotsky]

2. Then there are hypocrites who claim to want dialog...

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]

4. Remove the beam from your eye.

But to do so, one must recognize that the beam is there, correct?

[trotsky]

11. Have I ever accused you of being part of a choir, gil? Nope.

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]

12. We both know that you have directed numerous messages to me.

And it is interesting to me how what is said by you privately and what is admitted by you publicly can differ.

[trotsky]

14. Ah, so this is only about you lecturing others, as usual.

In that case, I stand by everything I've said about you.

EVERYTHING.

[guillaumeb]

15. The sermon is for all to read.

Nice avoidance on your part.

[trotsky]

24. Beam from your own eye and all that.

I guess you are in a position to judge everyone else and issue a sermon.

What a great Christian!

[guillaumeb]

27. My guess is that you misunderstood the point.

But, to clarify, we are all hypocrites at one time or another.

[trotsky]

43. The point of you deciding you get to issue a "sermon" to everyone on hypocrisy?

While smacking down anyone else who points out yours?

[guillaumeb]

29. Put everything that you have said into a post.

The private messages as well. If you cannot find them, I have saved them.

[trotsky]

44. As indicated, I stand by everything I said.

While you lecture everyone here on hypocrisy, you now issue threats to intimidate others.

Such "Christian" behavior. My, my.

[guillaumeb]

48. But you post some things privately.

Revealing indeed. So does your private behavior differ? Speaking to the point, of course.

[trotsky]

49. You can threaten me all you want.

I'm not going to stop speaking my mind. You can't silence me, and I know that burns you up.

[guillaumeb]

50. Why do you call it a threat?

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]

51. Because that's what you're doing. Threatening me.

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]

52. Congratulations for illustrating in your own way.

I can only guess that your repetition of the word threat is designed to accomplish something.

[trotsky]

53. I'm sorry it makes you feel uncomfortable to have your behavior identified accurately.

But I won't stop doing it.

Please, have your precious last word. I know you need it.

[guillaumeb]

54. Consistency is not always a virtue.

You keep speaking of "removing the beam". Listen to what you are advising.

[Lordquinton]

13. Fine example of the topic at hand

[guillaumeb]

18. It is an illustration of one facet of the issue.

[Lordquinton]

22. I'm assuming you're giving this sermon from personal experience

I can dig up some examples if you need them?

[guillaumeb]

25. Have we all not been guilty of it?

[Cartoonist]

3. The etymology of hypocrisy is Greek

Why do you have to drag the Bible into the discussion?

[guillaumeb]

6. Hypocrisis is also Latin.

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. In the same way "du jure" is English.

It's a loan word.

[guillaumeb]

9. Or "du jour", another expression used in English.

Every language borrows words. But the behavior remains the same no matter the language.

[msongs]

10. "the bible" lol. there's the problem nt

[Voltaire2]

16. Could you please explain your assertion

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]

17. What specifically do you not understand?

Or, what specifically do you disagree with?

[Voltaire2]

19. This part:

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]

20. Hypocrisy.

I know it when I see it!

[guillaumeb]

21. True, but with all of the flying stones around here,

I am starting to feel as if I need a helmet and shield.

[Lordquinton]

23. Afraid someone might one day throw one back?

[guillaumeb]

26. Who here is without sin?

[Mariana]

30. Define sin, please. nt.

[guillaumeb]

31. Who here is perfect?

[Mariana]

32. Define sin, please. nt.

[guillaumeb]

33. I redefined the question.

Feel free to respond.

[Voltaire2]

34. You once again ran away from your own

statement.

[guillaumeb]

35. It is the exact same statement, rephrased in a non-religious way.

And the questioner has not responded, but feel free to respond if you wish.

[Voltaire2]

36. No it isnt.

[guillaumeb]

37. As I said, feel free to respond.

Or continue as you have been.

[Mariana]

38. You're contradicting yourself.

Either you redefined it, as you said in post #33, or it's exactly the same. Which is it?

[guillaumeb]

39. Sin in a faith sense is not following the commands of your faith.

Being imperfect. So when I ask if you have ever sinned, I am also asking if you are imperfect.

[Mariana]

40. If not following the commands of one faith

is what makes one imperfect, then the question can't apply to me, because I have no faith.

[guillaumeb]

41. That definition is specific to religion.

So the question remains. Are you perfect, or do you have some slight faults?

[Voltaire2]

42. So for example a person with six toes

has sinned.

[Mariana]

45. God prohibited people with imperfections such as that

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]

46. Arguably god v3 in the NT likes defective

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]

47. An incredible leap.

Olympic caliber.

[marylandblue]

55. It's not a leap

They are trying to hold you to higher degree of precision in your language than you are willing to provide.

[Voltaire2]

56. Yes I agree that your claim that

sins and imperfections are equivalent was nonsense.

See? We do agree on some things!