Are most Christians inveterate hypocrites?

Post by Infidelis Maximus
http://infidelismaximus.blogspot.com/2007/04/are-christians-hypocrites.html
I'd like to see any of you refute it.

If it were really true that you would like to see it refuted, you would probably
have seen it already long ago. But since you have not seen it, you almost
certainly do not want to see it.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
One warning: I know your Bible
better than you do,

This boasting shows that you do not know the most important part of the Bible:
that wisdom and understanding come _only_ with the kind of humility that cdannot
stand even the thgouth of such boasting.

[snip]

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Infidelis Maximus

2007-05-02 01:09:57 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
that wisdom and understanding come _only_ with the kind of humility that cdannot
stand even the thgouth of such boasting.

R-i-g-h-t. No, it's just a matter of fact, and I don't want you wasting my
time with quoting scripture at me rather than answering the challenge.
Christians love to recite scripture instead of actually thinking for
themselves. They love to respond to logical questions with scripture rather
than, well, logic. The five points of the challenge do not need nor would
they benefit from additional scriptural discussion. I already said in the
challenge that I wouldn't entertain any argument about whether or not Jesus
having lived a particular way meant that his followers should. If I put it
in the challenge, obviously I think he wanted Christians to follow his
example in that particular area. So, the only remaining question is whether
you measure up. Want me to shave my head and leave this newsgroup and never
come back--find me someone who meets the challenge.

Post by Matthew Johnson
If it were really true that you would like to see it refuted, you would probably
have seen it already long ago. But since you have not seen it, you almost
certainly do not want to see it.

So, I take it from this that you don't live up to the five points, either.
Damn--it seems there's none righteous, no not one. Do you think God's about
to do what he did the last time something like this happened--flood the
earth and kill everyone?
--
-Infidelis Maximus
Read my assailment of all things phony and false (especially religion) at:
http://infidelismaximus.blogspot.com. Subscribe to the RSS feed to get my
ramblings delivered to you automatically.

Read "The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read." If the book is wrong
and your faith is strong, it shouldn't hurt you one bit. But if the book is
right, it could open your eyes.

...

Matthew Johnson

2007-05-04 03:18:16 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
This boasting shows that you do not know the most important part of
the Bible: that wisdom and understanding come _only_ with the kind
of humility that cdannot stand even the thgouth of such boasting.

R-i-g-h-t.

Well, so you got at least one word right in this post of yours;) Your
post went quickly downhill from there. I wish I could say I was
surprised.

But I am not surprised. For from your very first post in this thread,
it has been clear: you _are_ one of the "carnal thinkers" St. Symeon
the New Theologian so brilliantly described in his aphorism:

For those who think carnally, God is nowhere, since He is
invisible; but for those who think spiritually, God is everywhere,
since He abides in everything. He is in all, and outside of all,
since He is "close to those who fear Him (Psa 85:9)" but "far from
sinners is His salvation(Psa 119:155)".

BTW: this explains why you will never see when your challenge has been
met: because you think and 'see' only carnally, you will always
misinterpret the evidence in front of your eyes, claiming not to see
it. You have been doing this already for years, haven't you?

Post by Infidelis Maximus
No, it's just a matter of fact,

No, it is not. On the contrary: as I already pointed out, you claim
great knowledge, but in the very claim itself, show great ignorance of
the topic.

Starting out your 'challenge' with "I know your Bible better than you
do" is incredibly haughty arrogance. Far from "a matter of fact",
especially after the Bible _ignorance_ you displayed in your most
recent post in this thread. See below.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
and I don't want you wasting my time with quoting scripture at me
rather than answering the challenge.

Ah, but if this is really your sole motive for saying it, you could
have said something _very_ different; and you _should_ have. What you
_said_ was "don't start the scripture stuff with me". What you
_should_ have said was something like: "don't expect me to be
convinced by bare Scripture citations".

But you did NOT say this, nor anything remotely like this! So you
reveal that your motive is not the pure motive you pretend to
have. Your real motive must be something darker, such as the desire to
scoff -- which you have indulged in so abundantly already.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Christians love to recite scripture instead of actually thinking for
themselves.

Just as you love spouting false dichotomies like this one? Just as you
lost posting 'challenges' that are nothing more than elaborate loaded
questions?

Post by Infidelis Maximus
They love to respond to logical questions with scripture rather than,
well, logic.

You did not _have_ a logical question in your post. Rather, both your
post and the URL you refernce are full of illogical assertions, such
as "I know most Christians have no idea who either man is", or "[it
is] another little ditty".

Again, such confidence in your false and prejudicial conclusions shows
overwhelming arrogance. Such arrogance is _completely_ incompatible
with Reason. If you knew the Bible even half as well as you claim, you
would have known this, and therefore _refrained_ from revealing your
arrogance so openly.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
The five points of the challenge do not need nor would
they benefit from additional scriptural discussion.

This is total nonsense. You are engaging in the fallacy of "moving the
goalpost". You _have_ arbitrarily moved the standards of proof to
exclude the real answer, and allow only the false answer you want.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
I already said in the challenge that I wouldn't entertain any
argument about whether or not Jesus having lived a particular way
meant that his followers should.

Which is yet another example of "moving the goalpost".

Post by Infidelis Maximus
If I put it in the challenge, obviously I think he wanted Christians
to follow his example in that particular area.

But this is just another mistake of yours. He did _not_ for example,
want all His followers to call themelves "the Way, the Truth and the
Life", nor to say of themselves, "I and the Father are one".

Post by Infidelis Maximus
So, the only remaining question is whether you measure up.

No, that is not even a _relevant_ question, far less "the only
remaining question". Especially when you fail the measure by so much
more.

[snip]

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Damn--it seems there's none righteous, no not one.

What did you _think_ Romans 3:10-18 was about?

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Do you think God's about to do what he did the last time something
like this happened--flood the earth and kill everyone?

This is a childish question. We already know He will not. In fact, you
should be embarassed to ask such a question after boasting so vainly
of your own alleged Bible knowledge. We know He will not "flood the
earth and kill everyone" because of Gen 8:21.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
--
-Infidelis Maximus
Read my assailment of all things phony and false

This is just another of your lies. Your blog is NOT an "assailment of
all things phony and false". Not even close. Why, its greatest failing
to to fail to assail _itself_ since its falsehoods are far more
serious than any of those it 'assails'.

[snip]

Post by Infidelis Maximus
But if the book is right, it could open your eyes.

And if the book is wrong, it could harm you quite a bit. In fact, you
_do_ show the typical symptoms of such harm, just as St. Symeon
described.

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Infidelis Maximus

2007-05-08 00:34:50 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
But I am not surprised. For from your very first post in this thread,
it has been clear: you _are_ one of the "carnal thinkers"

Boy, your carnal mind is the only one you have. Time to start using it. Do
you or don't you follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the
challenge?

Post by Matthew Johnson
BTW: this explains why you will never see when your challenge has been
met: because you think and 'see' only carnally, you will always
misinterpret the evidence in front of your eyes, claiming not to see
it.

Try me, and we'll see. Dare you reveal how/whether you measure up? Do you
or don't you follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the challenge?

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it is not. On the contrary: as I already pointed out, you claim
great knowledge, but in the very claim itself, show great ignorance of
the topic.

The 'claim itself' is called being provocative-perhaps you've heard of the
concept? It's an attempt to goad you and your friends into a response, and
it's working splendidly, if I do say so myself. Do you or don't you follow
the teachings of Christ as outlined in the challenge?

Post by Matthew Johnson
Ah, but if this is really your sole motive for saying it, you could
have said something _very_ different; and you _should_ have. What you
_said_ was "don't start the scripture stuff with me". What you
_should_ have said was something like: "don't expect me to be
convinced by bare Scripture citations".

Pardon me, but what language are you speaking? I said what I meant and
meant what I said: you quoting scripture at me won't answer whether you
measure up to the challenge. Is that simple enough for you now? Do you or
don't you follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the challenge?

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Christians love to recite scripture instead of actually thinking for
themselves.

Just as you love spouting false dichotomies like this one?

It's not a false dichotomy, but you are too ignorant to see that. Reciting
scripture (i.e., citing someone else's reasoning- in your opinion, God's) is
indeed the opposite of reasoning for yourself. You have fallen back on rote
recitation of scripture for so long that you no longer know how to reason on
your own. You are feebleminded. But, you can probably get back your power
to think for yourself if you really try. Like the guy said in The Abyss
regarding breathing liquid: your body will remember.

Do you or don't you follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the
challenge?

Post by Matthew Johnson
You did not _have_ a logical question in your post.

The logical question (sorry, I thought it was obvious) is 'How can you call
yourself a Christian when you live contrary to the teachings of Christ?' Is
that simple enough for you? 'Are most Christians inveterate hypocrites?'
asks whether the most self-righteous and judgmental people in the world even
live up to their own supposed ideals. Is that logical enough for you?

Do you or don't you follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the
challenge?

Post by Infidelis Maximus
The five points of the challenge do not need nor would
they benefit from additional scriptural discussion.

This is total nonsense.

Only if you're a complete moron. For the umpteenth time: scripture is
irrelevant to the question of whether you (or any other Christian) meets the
five points. You surely don't question whether those five points are
scriptural. So, the only question remaining is whether you or any of your
deluded friends can practice what you preach. You've tried to answer every
question except the one I posed. Logically, if we can't find even one
person who meets the five points, we've got a real hypocrisy problem amongst
Christians because a good number of them certainly _claim_ to follow the
teachings of Christ and are quite happy to castigate others for not doing
so.

Do you or don't you follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the
challenge?

Post by Matthew Johnson
You are engaging in the fallacy of "moving the
goalpost". You _have_ arbitrarily moved the standards of proof to
exclude the real answer, and allow only the false answer you want.

I haven't moved any goalpost. I said from the outset that I would not
entertain any argument about whether Jesus intended the five points to be
followed. The discussion doesn't benefit from additional scriptural
discussion because that discussion could tell us nothing about your ability
to meet the challenge. Either you meet the five points or you don't.
Reciting all the scripture in the world won't change that. Do you or don't
you follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the challenge?

The answer I want is the one you have not even attempted to provide: do you
or do you not follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the challenge?
If you don't, do you know anyone who does? Line 'em up-let's see 'em. If
you can produce them, one shaved head coming your way. If you can't, the
conclusion is obvious.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
I already said in the challenge that I wouldn't entertain any
argument about whether or not Jesus having lived a particular way
meant that his followers should.

Which is yet another example of "moving the goalpost".

It's not moving the goalpost, you damned fool, if it was set out in the
challenge to begin with. I didn't want the discussion to devolve into an
endless theological morass; I wanted straight answers to straight questions,
something you Christians seem pathologically incapable of providing. Do you
or don't you follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the challenge?

Post by Infidelis Maximus
So, the only remaining question is whether you measure up.

No, that is not even a _relevant_ question, far less "the only
remaining question". Especially when you fail the measure by so much
more.

It is indeed the only remaining question, and it is indeed the one
originally posed by the challenge. Do you or don't you follow the teachings
of Christ as outlined in the challenge?

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Do you think God's about to do what he did the last time something
like this happened--flood the earth and kill everyone?

The comment was made tongue in cheek, you moron. It was a rhetorical device
meant to point out the unjustness and vindictiveness of the Christian God.

Do you or don't you follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the
challenge?

So, going forward, unless you answer my question, I won't be responding to
you further. You know the question (or at least you should; I've tried to
repeat it enough that even you can't miss it); now answer it. As fun as it
is to waste my time reading the folly of a fool, I'll ignore anything else
you come up with until you answer the question.

--
-Infidelis Maximus
Read my assailment of all things phony and false (especially religion) at:
http://infidelismaximus.blogspot.com. Subscribe to the RSS feed to get my
ramblings delivered to you automatically.

Read "The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read." If the book is wrong
and your faith is strong, it shouldn't hurt you one bit. But if the book is
right, it could open your eyes.

Matthew Johnson

2007-05-10 00:40:50 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
But I am not surprised. For from your very first post in this thread,
it has been clear: you _are_ one of the "carnal thinkers"

Boy, your carnal mind is the only one you have.

As I expected, you made the wrong assumption about what 'carnal' means
in "carnal mind". Again, I am not surprised.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Time to start using it.

Wrong again. It is time for _you_ to start using your mind. You have
yet to begin.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Do you or don't you follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the
challenge?

This is a loaded question. You have no right to expect an answer to a
loaded question. If you expect a serious answer to questions like
these, you have to learn what those "teachings of Christ" really _are_
before you pose questions about them. Why, you didn't even understand
which sense of the word 'evil' He meant in the Sermon on the Mount!

In fact, it is widely recognized that the first step in any
investigative endeavor is to identify the right question. But this you
refuse to do! Instead, you keep harping over and over on a _very_
wrong question.

If you were not too obstinate for learning, you would knock it
off. Start searching for the _right_ question.

Try me, and we'll see.

Didn't you notice? I already did try you, and found you wanting. You
really did reveal yourself to be the fool of the Proverb:

A prudent man concealeth knowledge; but the heart of fools proclaimeth
foolishness. (Pro 12:23 JPS)

You have proclaimed much foolishness, and very great foolishness.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Dare you reveal how/whether you measure up?

Ironic coming from the one who already measured up so poorly.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Do you or don't you follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the
challenge?

Repeating the same loaded question will get you nowhere.

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it is not. On the contrary: as I already pointed out, you claim
great knowledge, but in the very claim itself, show great ignorance of
the topic.

The 'claim itself' is called being provocative

If that were all it were, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But the
problem is the particular _way_ in which it is
'provocative'. Especially since you show such very great ignorance of
the very topic you presume to make such grandiose pronouncments about.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
perhaps you've heard of the concept?

I know the concept far better than you do. That is why I _avoid_ the
particular kind of 'provocative' behavior you have so recklessly
embraced.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
It's an attempt to goad you and your friends into a response, and
it's working splendidly, if I do say so myself.

'Splendidly', you say? Then why is no one accepting your 'challenge'?
Perhaps because despite your braggadocio, it is _not_ working so
splendidly? Perhaps because they recognize it for the tar baby it
really is?

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Do you or don't you follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the
challenge?

You do not know the teachings of Christ yourself, so are in no
position to make these 'challenges'.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Ah, but if this is really your sole motive for saying it, you could
have said something _very_ different; and you _should_ have. What
you _said_ was "don't start the scripture stuff with me". What you
_should_ have said was something like: "don't expect me to be
convinced by bare Scripture citations".

Pardon me, but what language are you speaking?

English. You should learn it someday.

This puerile question is another good example of how you have no idea
what you are talking about.
Then you are a liar when you state your motive. It really is that
simple. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you have shown
contempt for that generosity. So I won't do it again.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
you quoting scripture at me won't answer whether you measure up to
the challenge. Is that simple enough for you now?

Evidently it is not "simple enough for you", since you have failed to
understand it yourself; the so-called 'challenge' cannot be met
_without_ quoting Scripture, largely because you got it _wrong_: you
do not yourself _know_ what the teachings of Christ are. So the first
task would have to be to correct you.

But you do not accept correction, do you? You certainly haven't done
it ever since wandering into this NG. You _are_ the brutish man of the
Proverb:

Whoso loveth knowledge loveth correction; but he that is brutish
hateth reproof. (Pro 12:1 JPS)

Brutish is a pretty good description of your behavior in this thread.

[snip]

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Christians love to recite scripture instead of actually thinking
for themselves.

Just as you love spouting false dichotomies like this one?

It's not a false dichotomy,

Yes, it is.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
but you are too ignorant to see that.

It is your ignorance, or is it obstinacy, that keeps _you_ from seeing
that yes, it is a false dichotomy.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Reciting scripture (i.e., citing someone else's reasoning- in your
opinion, God's) is indeed the opposite of reasoning for yourself.

Who is doing the mindless reciting here? It is you. For it is quite
mindless to repeat your claim with no substantiating evidence, as if
we should believe you just because you say 'is indeed'. Such
repetition is the 'reciting', not my citation.

Taking your word for this is what is really 'mindless'. Especially
since you even got the definition of 'recite' WRONG. It is NOT a
synonym for 'cite', not even with your proviso.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
You have fallen back on rote recitation of scripture

I have done no such thing. By making this false claim, you show how
ignorant and obstinate you really are. I have not 'recited' Scripture
in this thread at all. Go back and reread my posts. I wasn't the one
introducing the Scripture citations. You were.

What is worse, since you show clearly that you do not understand the
Scripture you yourself cite (whether in the thread itself or in your
blog), you show that it is you who cite without understanding, without
using your own mind.

Guess that makes it pretty clear who the real hypocrite is. Clear to
all except yourself, of course.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
for so long that you no longer know how to reason on
your own.

Who is it who no longer "knows how to reason on his own"? Surely it is
you, who confuse 'reciting' with citation and insist on false
dichotomies and loaded questions.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
You are feebleminded.

No, that accusation would fit you much better, since you confuse
recitation with citation -- among other gross errors.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
But, you can probably get back your power to think for yourself if
you really try. Like the guy said in The Abyss regarding breathing
liquid: your body will remember.

Try breathing some liquid yourself before you bother to reply.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Do you or don't you follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the
challenge?

Post by Matthew Johnson
You did not _have_ a logical question in your post.

The logical question (sorry, I thought it was obvious) is 'How can
you call yourself a Christian when you live contrary to the teachings
of Christ?'

That is not a logical question, it is a _loaded_ question. What is
more, it was not even _in_ your post. So you are wrong on _two_
counts.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Is that simple enough for you?

Apparently it is not simple enough for _you_, since you failed to
notice it is a loaded question, therefore an illogical one.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
'Are most Christians inveterate hypocrites?'

This, of course, is even more prejudicially and fallaciously loaded.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
asks whether the most self-righteous and judgmental people in the world even
live up to their own supposed ideals. Is that logical enough for you?

You are the only contributor to this thread who persists in the
illusion that this is 'logical'. I am not the only one to point out
that it is not.

When will you take the hint? When will you apply logic yourself to see
that no, it is not 'logical' at all, not in any sense of the word? For
this too, is loaded, and loaded badly: you cry out very loudly your
bad presumption, that it is Christians who are "the most
self-righteous and judgmental people in the world". And then you
wonder why no Christian will take up your dishonest 'challenge'!

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Do you or don't you follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the
challenge?

Repeating the same loaded question will get you nowhere.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
The five points of the challenge do not need nor would they benefit
from additional scriptural discussion.

This is total nonsense.

Only if you're a complete moron.

No, rather, your failure to recognize it for the nonsense it is shows
that it is you who is the "complete moron". Especially since you
didn't even get right which sense of 'evil' Christ used in the Sermon
on the Mount.
Repeating a falsehood the "umpteenth time" does not make it any less
false.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
scripture is irrelevant to the question of whether you (or any other
Christian) meets the five points.

Not true. You can't even really know what the five points _mean_
without Scripture.

But even more important, it is by looking at Scripture that we can see
that your entire presumption of the "five points" is simply wrong.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
You surely don't question whether those five points are scriptural.

Don't be so sure of that.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
So, the only question remaining is whether you or any of your
deluded friends can practice what you preach. You've tried to answer every
question except the one I posed. Logically, if we can't find even one
person who meets the five points, we've got a real hypocrisy problem amongst
Christians because a good number of them certainly _claim_ to follow the
teachings of Christ and are quite happy to castigate others for not doing
so.

No, that does not follow 'logically'. Not at all. Rather, as Kleinecke
already pointed out, there wasn't anything logically coherent at that
site in the first place. It was just a rambling rant.

In his exact words (msg-id E6b_h.7837$***@trnddc02):

Seems fairly incoherent to me. You seem to think you have
thrown down a challenge to Christians, but I cannot locate any thesis
in your rant to refute.

end quote-----------

So just as I said: nothing logically coherent. When will _you_ use
your mind and recognize that I and Kleinecke are right, you are wrong?

[snip]

Post by Matthew Johnson
You are engaging in the fallacy of "moving the goalpost". You
_have_ arbitrarily moved the standards of proof to exclude the real
answer, and allow only the false answer you want.

I haven't moved any goalpost.

Look up the definition of this fallacy. You will find that "move the
goalpost" is a descriptive metaphor, not a name that is itself a
complete definition. It is NOT necessary that you yourself do the
motion in the argument itself for you to be guilty of using the
fallacy of "moving the goalpost".

Post by Infidelis Maximus
I said from the outset that I would not entertain any argument about
whether Jesus intended the five points to be followed.

And that is already a major problem. You have no right to make this
refusal. And we have every right to ignore your 'challenge' as long as
you insist on this unjustifiable refusal.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
The discussion doesn't benefit from additional scriptural discussion
because that discussion could tell us nothing about your ability to
meet the challenge.

This is not true. For you did not understand the Scripture you quoted
in your blog.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Either you meet the five points or you don't.

But this is quite beside the point: the "five points" are WRONG.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Reciting all the scripture in the world won't change that.

Who do you think you can fool with this switch from "scriptural
discussion" to "reciting scripture"?

Post by Infidelis Maximus
Do you or don't you follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the
challenge?

And the reason for this is that you want the WRONG THING.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
do you or do you not follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in
the challenge? If you don't, do you know anyone who does? Line 'em
up-let's see 'em. If you can produce them, one shaved head coming
your way. If you can't, the conclusion is obvious.

And as so often when evil dissemblers say 'obvious', it is not even
true, much less 'obvious'.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
I already said in the challenge that I wouldn't entertain any
argument about whether or not Jesus having lived a particular way
meant that his followers should.

Which is yet another example of "moving the goalpost".

It's not moving the goalpost, you damned fool, if it was set out in the
challenge to begin with.

Not true. Lookup the definition. Come to think of it, you could have
avoided a lot of problems if you had bothered to really learn the
meanings of the terms you use before posting.

See, for example, the definition from
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp which is:

The Moving Goalpost A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria
for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently
exists.
-----------------end quote

You meet this definition by considering the 'move' to take place
_before_ you posted your link to the rant. This is perfectly
reasonable, as is shown by comparison with the definitions at other
sites, which include examples where the move takes place outside the
argument itself -- just as you have done.

I'll let you do your own homework to find those other examples.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
I didn't want the discussion to devolve into an
endless theological morass;

Oh, really? So you prefer the morass it has now devolved into?

Post by Infidelis Maximus
I wanted straight answers to straight questions,

I don't believe you. For your questions are NOT straight. Not even
close.

Post by Infidelis Maximus
something you Christians seem pathologically incapable of providing.

No, rather, you are pathologically incapable of seeing any answer from
Christians as 'straight', just as St. Symeon described.

[snip]

Post by Infidelis Maximus
So, the only remaining question is whether you measure up.

No, that is not even a _relevant_ question, far less "the only
remaining question". Especially when you fail the measure by so much
more.

It is indeed the only remaining question, and it is indeed the one
originally posed by the challenge.

No, it is not the only remaining question. Rather, your blind
insistence that it is is a large part of why no one will answer your
question. We can all see that you have already made up your mind, and
are not sincerely interested in a real answer.

[snip]

Post by Matthew Johnson
This is a childish question. We already know He will not. In fact,
you should be embarassed to ask such a question after boasting so
vainly of your own alleged Bible knowledge. We know He will not
"flood the earth and kill everyone" because of Gen 8:21.

The comment was made tongue in cheek, you moron.

And making it tongue in cheek is no less childish. So now guess who is
looking like a moron? It is you, for posing a childish question, and
then trying to back out by claiming "it was tongue in cheek", just
like the madman in the Proverb:

As a madman who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death; So is the man
that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith: 'Am not I in sport?' (Pro
26:18-19 JPS)

Post by Infidelis Maximus
It was a rhetorical device meant to point out the unjustness and
vindictiveness of the Christian God.

With such a dishonest purpose, no wonder it went awry.

[snip]

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Dave

2007-05-02 01:09:58 UTC

This article makes the case that they are:http://infidelismaximus.blogspot.com/2007/04/are-christians-hypocrite...
I'd like to see any of you refute it. One warning: I know your Bible
better than you do, so don't start the scripture stuff with me. If what you
believe is true, it should stand up to reason and scrutiny. You shouldn't
need to appeal to a book or to some higher authority to justify it.

It appears to me that there is _no one_ living today who lives up to
his own standards of behavior. So everyone is a hypocrite, and
Christians are not any more inveterate hypocrites than anyone else.

Dave

r***@yahoo.com

2007-05-03 01:43:01 UTC

Post by Dave

infidelis: Since you're such a Bible wiz, extra credit if you can tell
us where in the bible it makes this point.
You already quoted the concusion, so I would think this will be fairly
easy....

While I have noticed that LOTS of skeptics are really good at using
the terms logic and reason as words in thier sentences, they are not
always so adept at using the discipline.

Hey, would it be OK to refute the arguments logic by quoting
scripture?

DKleinecke

2007-05-03 01:43:00 UTC

Normally I don't follow links, but I got up up enough interest to look
at the blog. Seems fairly incoherent to me. You seem to think you have
thrown down a challenge to Christians, but I cannot locate any thesis
in your rant to refute.

A lot depends on what one means by "hypocrite". You seem to believe
that some one who professes to be a Christian is a hypocrite if they
do not behave according to your interpretation of Christianity. I
don't know that we should accept your interpretation as having any
value. Certainly your claim to know the Bible better than anyone else
makes it highly unlikely that you actually do and makes it very
unlikely that a Christian could consider your interpretation as
interesting.

If I had hung around your blog longer I might have been able to
determine what your unacknowledged, but alleged-to-be-morally-
superior, theology is. From your monicker I would guess hard-core
atheist. I assume you do not consider yourself a hypocrite. If not -
what set of values are your living up to?

What you choose to call hypocrisy is mostly mere confusion and human
weakness. The Sermon on the Mount is not the law of the land - it is a
set of moral guidelines that some of us try to follow as well as we
can. We do the best we can - but it is, sadly, all too often less than
the best possible.

That is why a forgiving God is required.

l***@hotmail.com

2007-05-08 00:34:52 UTC

I rarely follow links. My time is limited and my studies are already
defined. So, if you would be so kind, may I presume your intent?

As you have quoted, there is No one who does good, at least not
continually and without wavering. The *true* "born again" Christian
makes no claim to perfectionism -at least not this side of death/
eternity. Being "born again" does not equate to say that the old man
has been put to death. I really, honestly and truly believe the cry
of Paul to God in his thrice petition to remove that "thorn in the
flesh" was in fact, simply the "thorn of the flesh." I can only
imagine what it must have been like to have been either one of the
disciples who were personally trained by Rabbi Jesus, or even more so,
Paul, who was not only trained in the Arabian desert but was twice
caught up into the 3rd heaven to stand before the very Throne of God
and then to be sent back down to earth with the "old man" still
nipping at his heels.

But that is not to say that the Christian does not experience real
growth in the area of moral regeneration. The Rom 7 experience is a
life long experience for the Christian, but as he matures, the valleys
between the mountain top experiences are less deep and less broad.
The Christian is given the in indwelling Holy Spirit that he might be
enabled to "set your mind on the things above," and to be
"transfigured by the renewing of your minds", but admittedly, it is
not carried out perfectly.

There is a purpose behind this wrestling match that the regenerated
man is called to. One cannot truly appreciate the goodness of good
until he has experienced the putridity of evil. "Oh wretched man that
I am" is the cry of the believer who desires to please God but falls
short. But because "we are His workmanship" and that He is at work in
us "both to will and to do His good pleasure", Paul's bemoaning "Oh
wretched man" transfigures into the triumphant, "Thanks be to God
through Jesus Christ" because God is merciful and "His kindness and
forbearance and patience... leds us to repentance."

The wicked servant of Mt 25 "banked" on the hope that Owner was not
going to come back to collect what He had lent out. But the Christian
is called to the fact that the "grace of God has
appeared. . .instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires
and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age
**Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our
great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.** Sanctification is different
from that of justification at this one point, that it is progressive
holiness where as justification is declared righteousness.
Justification is the basis for the hope of progressive
sanctification. Sanctification is existential in nature. Faith is
not a destination as much as it is a journey to be lived out.

But do not confuse this with sheer positivism. Moral accceptance is
not based upon man's standard of ajudication but God's. It is only
"through Him" than our works are declared good enough to be "to Him."
And it is only because of the new birth being "from Him" that we have
the capacity to not only seek to please God, but to actualize it as
well.

b***@juno.com

2007-05-10 00:40:49 UTC

If you knew Christian theology at even its most basic level, you would
understand that of COURSE Christians are hypocrites. You see, that is
what it means when the Bible says that we all sin. One of the most
basic of all Christian beliefs is that everybody sins, and this
includes hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is no worse than any other sin, and it
is unavoidable in day to day life.

I myself have certain ideals that I aspire to, that I fail constantly
to attain. This does not mean that I suddenly lose the right to speak
of those ideals. Thus, when I speak about the very ideals that I fail
to attain, does this make me a hypocrite? Yes, I think it does. But so
what. I will continue to speak of those ideals, even while I admit
that I fail to achieve them.

If we all sin, that means that every single person, including
Christians, fails to live up to their own professed ideals. But the
fact that someone fails to achieve their own highest ideals, does not
suddenly invalidate that ideal. Nor do they suddenly lose the right to
speak of that which they fail to attain. Rather, failing to live up to
your highest ideals, simply means you should try harder, and speak
more of it, in a spirit of humble confession.

To summarize:
1. Of course everybody, including Christians, fails to live up to
their highest ideals.
2. And furthermore, even when somebody fails to achieve a high ideal,
chances are, they will still talk about it.
3. Thus hypcrisy (talking about an ideal that you fail to attain) is
pretty much unavoidable.
4. Better get used to it.

Matthew Johnson

2007-05-11 04:18:56 UTC

Post by b***@juno.com

Post by Infidelis Maximus
This article makes the case that they
are:http://infidelismaximus.blogspot.com/2007/04/are-christians-hypocrite...
I'd like to see any of you refute it. One warning: I know your Bible
better than you do, so don't start the scripture stuff with me. If what you
believe is true, it should stand up to reason and scrutiny. You shouldn't
need to appeal to a book or to some higher authority to justify it.

If you knew Christian theology at even its most basic level, you would
understand that of COURSE Christians are hypocrites.

Then why does the NT never apply this word to Christians in general? Why is it
applied mostly only to the Scribes and Pharisees?

Post by b***@juno.com
You see, that is
what it means when the Bible says that we all sin.

You upbraided him for not knowing 'christian theology at its most basic level'
yet you came up with this? No, that is not what it means. It most certainly does
_not_ mean that we are all hypocrites. You are following a definition of the
word 'hypocrite' that is not very close to the Biblical sense of the word
UPOKRITHS, G5273.

The Webster's definition referenced at the start of this thread is suspect.

Post by b***@juno.com
One of the most
basic of all Christian beliefs is that everybody sins,

Newsflash: there is a significant minority of Christians who believe Job never
sinned.

Post by b***@juno.com
and this
includes hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is no worse than any other sin, and it
is unavoidable in day to day life.

None of this is universally admitted among Christians. Only where Anselm's
broken soteriology holds sway does it have such currency.

[snip]

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

b***@juno.com

2007-05-13 23:50:06 UTC