Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


A List of Christian Hypocrisies

Psychology has found that a person in Church may feel holy and make good resolutions and as soon as they are out the door they are back to their bad behaviour.

 

They may be pretending to be somebody they are not even in front of God.  They seem to think God is so taken with them that they can fool him.

 

Role play can be happening too.  This is when you just do what everybody else does and its not really about trying to pretend.  The role play parts of the brain have been found to turn on when a person is engaged in public worship.

 

You can be a hypocrite and a role player both at the same time.

 

A hypocrite is a person who tells a lie by their outward deeds. They pretend to be good and just and pure when they are in fact not and don't intend to be. They hide their sins while banning and condemning the sins of others. Hypocrites are arrogant - they have a saint mentality. If you would suggest to a hypocrite that they might steal or have sex outside marriage they will be incredibly outraged. They think they would never do such things. And more importantly, they want others to think they wouldn't.
 
Christianity is notorious for its hypocrisy. Christians reply that the critics of this hypocrisy often use it as an excuse for discrediting the Church and their motive is their own self-justification. They feel they are morally superior when they reject the Church and claim that it is because it is such a hypocritical Church.
 
CHRISTIANS:
When people reject the gospel, it is a caricature of the gospel they reject. Or when people reject God it is a caricature of God they reject.

SANITY SAYS:
Any religion can say the same of its gospel - gospel means good news. And indeed does. The Buddhist can say that if anybody doesn't accept Buddhism it is because they can't understand the goodness and rationality of the faith. Its a boast along the lines of, "We are right and everybody else is wrong. Whoever rejects our version of the faith doesn't understand it or see that it is correct."The claim is arrogant and patronising. We should express our offence when it is directed at us.

The claim is all the more arrogant coming from your average believer because he or she does not have the theological expertise to make such a judgement. If there are humble believers, then they exist among the theologians.

It is vulgar for anybody to say they believe in intelligent design when they haven't even read the complicated pro and cons put forward by experts.
 
CHRISTIANS:

Living in houses, having cars, eating out, having bank accounts etc. It is possible to live and be healthy and happy without modern accessories.
 
SANITY SAYS:

Yet you say Jesus because he was God could have lived like that too but became an itinerant preacher who said that foxes have lairs but he has no place to lay down his head. This hypocrisy is more serious in the case of the clergy who claim to be the representatives of Jesus and taking his place on earth and showing forth his example.
 
Jesus told a man he can't please God unless he sells his riches and gives them to the poor. When you enjoy yourself with a bit of extravagance then somebody suffers. The gospel acknowledges that here.
 
CHRISTIANS:

Human life is so valuable that it is not right to put a dying and suffering person on their way
 
SANITY SAYS:

Your Bible is full of commands from God to kill people for offences like adultery and homosexuality and heresy. These are found in the Jewish law which Jesus said was scripture or the word of God. Jesus was commanded to walk into his death and he didn't even try to avoid arrest when he knew it was coming.
 
CHRISTIANS:

Abortion is wrong at all stages for life begins at conception
 
SANITY SAYS:

If it is a mother's right to refuse to donate a kidney, even though she doesn't need it, to save her grown child's life, then it is her right to have an abortion.
 
CHRISTIANS:

Abortion is wrong even when it saves the mother's life, but pregnancy does not kill women today
 
SANITY SAYS:

It does kill - it kills in the poorer parts of the world. And if it killed most women you would still ban abortion for your heart is simply not in the right place.
 
CHRISTIANS:

The right to life of the child from conception is equal to the right of the mother


SANITY SAYS:
To place a ball of cells on the same level as the woman is pure insanity.
 
To say both have the equal right to life does not solve the problem. There could be other reasons why the mother has to come first. The Church cheats people by over-simplifying the problem.
 
CHRISTIANS:

Prostitution is demeaning and wrong
 
SANITY SAYS:
You have no problem with somebody working in a job where they are used and insulted regularly. You praise the long suffering nurse working among ingrates who steal from her and endanger her. Presumably harmless sex where the client actually cares for the prostitute and she him is worse than being degraded and thought of as dirt in your job or a wife succumbing to her husband who only uses her for sex?
 
CHRISTIANS:

The Catholic employer may hire a Protestant to work for him. As long as the Protestant can do the job religion doesn't matter.


SANITY SAYS:

That teaching is actually just society's talk and stolen from society by religion. The Church sometimes pretends that society's attitudes are its own. The Church says we must be willing to suffer and die for the Church if need be. So the Church comes first because God comes first and the Church is his instrument and has been founded by him. To support a Protestant by giving him a job is in fact to support another faith for the Protestant is part of another faith.
 
If a Catholic and a Protestant were both equally suitable to do a job, it follows that the real Catholic will hire the Catholic. Society will go berserk if this happens. So much for its respect for religious freedom! It contradicts the alleged right of the Catholic to serve the interests of his own Church.

The implications of religion are often worse than the religion itself.

And Catholics often do think, "Maybe I should hire one of my own - a Catholic?" The very fact that religion inspires this thought is itself enough to make the warning bell ring. In a just world, the thought wouldn't even be thought.
 
CHRISTIANS:
God does not dwell in friendship inside babies that are not baptised. This is called original sin and is corrected when the baby is baptised.
 
SANITY SAYS:
Faith should incorporate concern for people and shouldn't insult or downgrade anybody and especially children. This lie of original sin is at the root of Christianity. It is the root from which all other doctrines proceed. For example, Jesus supposedly lived and died to save us from original sin. It is the contributor to all the sins we commit so he primarily died to fix it and established baptism and the Church and the sacraments to fight it. To go to Church at all is to support a religion that is rooted in a vicious and pernicious doctrine of original sin and fanaticism. It is because of original sin that prayer is considered necessary. It is because the elements of sin in us ruin or diminish our relationship with God that we need to pray. If we are in perfect harmony with God we don't need to make an effort to unite with him. Christian prayer is malicious in the sense that it honours and derives from the doctrine of original sin.
 
CHRISTIANS:
God taking away original sin away from babies is not a duty. He doesn't have to do it and would be perfectly good if he doesn't.
 
SANITY SAYS:
This suggests that God is entitled to let us suffer forces that draw us to sin and to keep us away from him. This makes no sense. The Catholic God is evil. He is capable of sending people to Hell forever.
 
CHRISTIANS:
Doctrines such as baptism taking away sins, Jesus being virgin born, dying for our sins and rising again and turning bread into his body to be our food are important.
 
SANITY SAYS:
Are they? You say they are important but that is all you do. You give no evidence. Suppose these teachings are for our moral good and our happiness. If these teachings were about bettering people then it would be simply necessary to be confident that God forgives and that somebody saved us if necessary and that God blesses our hearts with spiritual food of some kind all the time and invisibly and that we can be happy after death. What do we need to know its Jesus for? What do we need the virgin birth for? Christians are not concerned with bettering us so much as controlling us. If somebody got an official letter from a solicitor the point is that you got the letter not who typed it up or who posted it or what kind of ink was used or what kind of envelope. If somebody saved you it doesn't matter if it was Jesus or somebody else or if that person had a virgin mother or rose from the dead yet. If he needs to rise to save us he could do that at the end of the world. It is disgraceful how priests and clergy can make a big thing out of religious differences such as is Jesus the communion bread or not when there are people dying friendless on the streets. Religion's attitude is the seed of bigotry.
 
CHRISTIANS:
Promiscuity is bad
 
SANITY SAYS:
Yet you have no objections when a girl marries a man who has had thousands of sexual partners. If you sleep with a person you are in a sense sleeping with everybody they ever slept with. If a drug made a woman life to a thousand you would approve of her having had twenty husbands by the time she died. Your opposition to promiscuity is not about the quantity of sex but about your dislike of sex and your grudging tolerance of any sex that you allow.
 
CHRISTIANS:
The language of sex is, I give myself to you to be yours forever for I give you my body. Therefore sex must only happen in marriage.
 
SANITY SAYS:
The Church only imposes that meaning on sex. It doesn't take it seriously when it allows separation if the couple can't endure one another. A marriage in which there is no living together is only the semblance of a marriage. The Church doesn't ask any couples whose marriages were invalid and who have children to under a valid marriage to one another to regularise their situation. If sex really says that then why not go a step further and say, "I give you my whole self and will not remarry if you die for if I would remarry that is saying you can only have me until you die." That is holding something back.
 
A far deeper bond than sex happens when a woman gives birth. You may as well say she is bound to have no other children for she has given her body to her baby. Or you can say she must look after her husband only as a means to looking after her child but as far as he is in himself he is nothing to her.
 
We say we can love our spouses forever but we know that we cannot know what the future will bring. Love can easily turn to hate. Only saints could have sex without sin if the Christian teaching of sex is right.

The Church is making out that it thinks sex is holy. It flatters it to death and makes it rarely sinless. Husbands and wives would be virtual celibates. In reality the Church is using the flattery to stop sex because it hates it. It can hardly admit to hating sexuality for that would cause the whole world to howl in derision.
 
CHRISTIANS:
The language of sex is, I give myself to you to be yours forever for I give you my body and my fertility. Therefore contraception which indicates a holding back is wrong.
 
SANITY SAYS:
Yet you approve if a man has sex with his wife putting her at the risk of AIDS or a pregnancy that may kill her. That is some giving of yourself!
 
CHRISTIANS:
Love your neighbour as yourself
 
SANITY SAYS:
Yet they regard those Christians who are rich and enjoy their lives as good Christians though they will not live a basic life so that they can build hospitals to save the lives of the poor with their money. They condone and reward how those people do not really care about the poor enough.

 

You don't give a damn about the vast majority of people that live. You hurt them in doing so for if everybody loved us we would always be safe and feel safe and our self-esteem would be indestructible.

Our morality is based on, "Leave him alone. He is not bothering or hurting you."
 
It's hypocrisy. It implies that it is okay to hurt him if he is bothering or hurting you. And yet Christians condemn that. They are using the commandment not to educate or help people but to manipulate them.
 
CHRISTIANS:

We believe in justice at all costs.

SANITY SAYS:
The faithful believer has no problem approving and supporting a hypocritical religious and political system that tells lawyers who know they are defending evil monsters and trying to get them off the hook to condone the evil and tell themselves that the monsters are good people. After all, a good lawyer has to believe his or her own lies to be convincing and to convince others. Christianity does not really believe in freedom of conscience and virtue except when it suits its prejudices. A good lawyer aims to have witnesses under oath trip up so that it looks like they lied under oath. He does not care if they really did but just cares that it looks like they did. Also, he will take on the case when he feels that the accused has a reasonable chance of talking her or his way out of trouble.
 
CHRISTIANS: Tyranny is wrong, dictatorship is wrong
 
SANITY SAYS:
Yet you say that there is a revelation from God that all is bound to believe and not doubt. Liberals say that too so they are really no better than the fundamentalist for they have the same essential attitude