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?

Patrick H
Gormley


A List of Christian Hypocrisies

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
 
CHRISTIANS: If we annul a marriage, we don't declare the children of that marriage to be illegitimate
 
SANITY SAYS:
Illegitimate means that the babies should not have been born - or more accurately, they should not have been conceived in the first place. If the marriage was not real and it is true that real marriage is the only rightful context for having children then the children of an annulled marriage are illegitimate. You are avoiding admitting your true beliefs.
 
The claim that illegitimate simply means that the father is unknown is a blatant lie. It denies the meaning of the word illegitimate.
 
The annulment process in the Catholic Church in particular is really divorce for it regards a marriage as fake if anybody coerced the bride or groom. But the Bible God himself has laid down laws allowing and approving enforced marriage. A man could be forced to marry his sister in law or a woman he raped. The laws nevertheless show more enthusiasm for forcing women into marriage than men.
 
Catholics complain about people redefining marriage, but they have done that themselves by emphasising that you need to be free to contract a marriage which contradicts the Bible. They define marriage as a contract before God freely entered into by a man and woman for life that is open to procreation.
 
CHRISTIANS: It is okay to have a relationship with a married person awaiting annulment and to pray that the marriage will be annulled
 
SANITY SAYS:
If sex outside marriage is bad, it is bad to have such sex even if you only imagine you are married. It would be wrong to wish that anybody committed this sin.
 
CHRISTIANS: Converts should make a commitment to the gospel for life. Baptism is for expressing that commitment. The union made by God and the recipient can be symbolised by marriage but it is far closer and more important than that.
 
SANITY SAYS:
In other words, don't change your mind. Don't be open to evidence that disproves your faith or religion.
 
And if they really believe the marriage stuff, why do they baptise babies and children?

CHRISTIANS:
God made marriage indissoluble to protect marriage and the family
 
SANITY SAYS:
Correction: You believe that God only makes marriages between Christians to be indissoluble. You hold that marriages between unbaptised people though real can be dissolved. Nice to know that their families are not important.
 
CHRISTIANS:
Marriage between two baptised persons is for life and no power can end that marriage but death. Divorce may try but it doesn't work
 
SANITY SAYS:
So that marriage is to be protected and respected far more than any other kind of marriage just because the pair were initiated into Christianity and experienced a ritual that may mean nothing to them any more.
 
You Catholics believe that only marriages involving two baptised people cannot be broken and are indissoluble until death. You teach that a marriage between a baptised person and a non-baptised may be divorced. You are saying then that sex in those marriages is not saying, "Let us be married forever and never separated."

CHRISTIANS:
Cancer (for example) patients may take morphine though it makes them high and demeans their free will by putting them outside of their right minds
 
SANITY SAYS:
Morphine changes the natural workings of the mind. Your morality says that taking drugs or too much drink is degrading for it is fighting your nature and yet you allow it in this case though you say that human dignity and human wholeness is more important that avoiding pain. You say the dying process is the most important part of life for you have to use it to prepare for heaven or hell and you allow this distortion of mental faculties! If you repent then and prepare for heaven how do you know that it is you preparing and not the drugs?
 
CHRISTIANS:
You may say a sick or dying person, "Everything is going to be all right. Don't be scared."
 
SANITY SAYS:
That is the sin of presuming that God won't let them suffer any more. It is okay on the spiritual level to say that if there is no God. But if there is it insults him who comes first. Belief in God is not concerned with human welfare though spin-doctors try to tell you different.
 
CHRISTIANS:
Don't accept X into your charity to collect money for he or she defrauded others some years ago.

 

SANITY SAYS:
They are saying it is probable that that person will steal again.

CHRISTIANS: Punishment if possible should seek to deter sinners.
 
SANITY SAYS: If sin has bad results and punishments attached to it, then if you really care about the sinner you will tell her or him that he or she is doing wrong and sinning.
 
Surely one consequence of sinning is that you invite people to judge and criticise and dislike and disapprove of you? What sense does it make you say that you invite damage and pain through sin if getting judged is not one of the bad consequences? Surely if you sin you ask for judgement even if you don't want it? If you should not judge a person in any sense, even if you know they are sinful, then it makes no sense to talk about sin.
 
Sin means doing wrong that deserves judgement from God and those who are God's servants.
 
If you seek to protect sinners from even fair judgement, then why not drop the idea of sin altogether? You are enabling the sinners to keep sinning. Sinners hate being judged more than any other bad result of their sin.


It is natural to judge so if you suppress this instinct for religious political correctness, you prove yourself to be a hypocrite who facilitates sin while saying that sin is very bad and to be avoided.
 
CHRISTIANS:
God lets people suffer for a reason

 

SANITY SAYS:
What gives you the right to say that when others suffer more than you ever could? How dare you say that people should be used by your God as means not as ends? How dare you manipulate people into being comforted by your lies? How dare you when you cannot prove that there is a God? To mention your belief in God is to teach that he lets people suffer for a reason and that is vile.
 
CHRISTIANS:
Those who reject a relationship with Christ through unbelief or sin such as adultery or heresy or homosexuality will go to Hell at death and they will never be free from its torments


SANITY SAYS:
Nobody has the right to suggest anybody could be bad enough to choose such a fate or that anybody deserves to have such a fate. You need very strong proof before you can say a thing like that. Evil Christians will see in this doctrine an encouragement for them to maltreat others. The child may be so scared of eternal damnation that she or he may decide that it is best to be amoral and have no moral beliefs so that God may not damn her or him forever in Hell. God cannot put you in Hell unless you know what you are choosing.
 
You terrorize innocent children by making them feel or believe or both that they may go to Hell forever if they die. You give people a reason to be amoral. It is better to do harm on earth for there is only so much harm you can do over amoral beliefs than to believe and harm yourself by getting God to dump you in Hell forever.
 
Even if you don't terrorize then you should. You have to terrorize people to get them out of a burning building which is less danger than Hell. You have to assume everybody is in grave danger because it is better for everybody on earth to have a life of misery than for so much as one person to have an eternity of misery.
 
CHRISTIANS:

Religion has no room for violence
 
SANITY SAYS:

Your Bible is full of it. Doesn't Leviticus report God commanding that certain sinners be put to death? Didn't Jesus refuse to hide from arrest though he knew he was going to end up executed? Didn't he riot in the Temple? A secularist does not kill for what he or she believes in but religion often does. The secularist who persecutes is merely showing his or her lack of belief in secularism. If you know you are right and that people should be put before beliefs which is the essence of secularism you will not feel so insecure that you will feel the need for force. Accordingly you will not need to push it on people any more than anybody needs to push the idea that 1 + 1 = 2.

The word religion comes from the word to bind. Religion obligates or binds you to believe and do certain things. Secularism, secularism seeks only what is best for people without considering God, does not bind but inspires. Binding is an act of violence.
 
The religious person can never be secular for that implies that God is somehow a bad thing. Some religions may say they believe in the separation of Church and state. That is not secularist. It is merely an expression of the belief that God wants us to rule us his own way. In fact, they only advance separation for they think God desires it. But nevertheless they teach that if God's law and man's conflict God must be obeyed.
 
CHRISTIANS: God allows us to have paid ministries
 
SANITY SAYS:

With all the false religions about, with the duty to help others be good without charge, God is simply wrong or being demeaned yet again in the interests of the Church
 
CHRISTIANS:

Slander is wrong
 
SANITY SAYS:

And you feel you can accuse sinners of being bad enough to choose Hell or you can say that God puts them there for they deserve eternal torment. You need absolute proof of Hell before you can say things like that and you plod on without it and slander your God in the process for letting people suffer that fate
 
CHRISTIANS:

Going to healing shrines approved by the Church is good
 
SANITY SAYS:

If you trusted God, you would merely ask him to heal you and you wouldn't need to make a big thing of your prayer by expressing it on a pilgrimage. Instead you would devote the pilgrimage to praying for somebody else. To go on a pilgrimage and be frequently praying for healing just indicates that you think that if you keep nagging at God he will help for he is a rogue. You aren't so keen on praying all the time to be a saint and a hero of God as you are to get material health so if you get a healing then it wasn't God who gave it to you.


CHRISTIANS:

Evil thoughts and feelings are wrong and sinful if deliberately indulged in. Jesus said it was a sin to look with desire at a woman you were not married to
 
SANITY SAYS:

You are silent while actresses and actors kiss and rouse feelings of hatred and aggression to do their jobs. What about films that make children wish that there really was magic? Don't you say that magic blasphemes the doctrine that God is who is in control? You don't make as many restrictions as you think you should for you seek to exploit the people and you like admiration.
 
CHRISTIANS:

God punished Jesus in our place for our sins so that he could forgive us


SANITY SAYS:

And you praise him for that though it was not fair. If God thinks he is punishing our sins by taking it out on an innocent man then he is not really forgiving us at all. He is doing wrong himself by tormenting Jesus.  It is an insult to Jesus how Christians say he died for sins when in fact they pretend to take those sins seriously.  Their teaching of love the sinner and hate the sin means pretend the sinner and the sin are separate when they are plainly not.  The sinner is the problem and the sin cannot exist without the sinner.  It is the person's bad character that is the problem not what they do - what they do only shows what they are.  No Christian really can love the sinner and hate the sin.  When they say they do they mean they hate the damaging results of the bad action.  The mother loves her son though he is a drug dealer and because he is one but that does not mean she likes the results.  The results can be hated and not the person but the immorality cannot be hated without hating the person.  Love the sinner and hate the sin is actually passive aggressive.
 
CHRISTIANS: Homosexuality is an objective disorder but we are not saying homosexuals are disordered.
 
SANITY SAYS:

The homosexuality example just proves Christian hypocrisy. To say your sexuality is warped is to say you are warped in so far as your sexuality is warped.
 
CHRISTIANS:

We uphold human rights
 
SANITY SAYS:

Human rights are based on needs. We have a right to food for we need it. We have a right to basics. For example, you have a right to water but you do not have a right to chicken curry. The curry is a privilege. Rights are based on justice too. It is only fair that you get the water. But you say that we were conceived and born while God rejected us as sinners. We have no rights at all if we don't have a right to a relationship with this God of yours that is supposed to be so great. You may teach that babies that die rejected by God go to a paradise called Limbo and not the pains of Hell but that is a concession by God. He could send the child to everlasting torment. The only right we have is to burn in Hell. You used to openly admit your dogma that all the things currently referred to as human rights are not human rights but privileges. Now you hide it to sweeten people up.
 
CHRISTIANS:

Jane has to look after her ailing father all by herself for the family won't help her and we feel compassion for her
 
SANITY SAYS:

But if Jane is getting an opportunity to get a reward in Heaven from God how could you sincerely have compassion for her? You lie.
 
CHRISTIANS:

The sacraments are rituals that put God's grace in you
 
SANITY SAYS:

It means we depend on men to do the rites to bring us to God. That is actually worse than holding that the pope not Jesus died for your sins. Then the error is not that somebody didn't die for your sins but that somebody did and you have chosen just the wrong person.  The whole point of somebody dying to save you is that you come to them for salvation. If somebody says, "You cannot get access to that salvation unless you succumb to this ritual I offer", that takes away the whole point. You might as well believe anybody can save you.  Sacramentalism is extreme blasphemy.
 
CHRISTIANS:

The bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. They are not bread and wine any more though they seem to be bread and wine.
 
SANITY SAYS:

The ancients believed that their gods were greater beings than themselves but who were able to somehow become the images they worshipped. They did not think a statue could hear prayer and help them because it was just a statue. If an idol was broken or smashed, they excused this by saying that a greater god allowed it to happen or the god left the image. The Bible ignores such rationalisation and states simply that if it can be damaged it is not a god. The Catholic Church degrades the people by drawing them into idolatry. They adore bread and wine that is not God as proven by the fact that it ends up in the toilet.
 
The Bible denounces idolatry regardless of how happy it makes people because it is better to face the truth than to be happy and deluded.  The Catholic idolatry pretends a change has happened to make bread and wine the body and blood of Jesus. It is therefore worse than pagan idolatry.
 
Idolatry is mistaking what is not divine for divine. Its an intellectual error.
 
It is said that idolatry is also a sign that man wants to ignore God's authority and set up his own version of God and religion. Its a way of going your own way and having a God you can control at least to a degree. It shows traits of dishonesty and hypocrisy and arrogance. What if its a genuine mistake? This form of idolatry is actually a different type from the type where a statue is worshipped. It is really just another word for defiance of God. It is not really idolatry, strictly speaking.
 
It is not necessary to accuse statue worshipping of entailing vice and ill-will. The only real idolatry is adoring something as God when it is not. God says idolatry is evil and to be stamped out - if it is done with the best of intentions that is irrelevant.
  
CHRISTIANS:

You can be made righteous by mere repentance
 
SANITY SAYS:

Catholics say that if you were a robber and a brigand and a whoremonger in the past, it is not hypocritical to repent and condemn those things now.

 

But reason says that unless you confess these things publicly you cannot engage in any public crusade against them. You must confess you were a homosexual and why you think its wrong and say why you have given it up if you want to cast a vote against gay rights. If you work against evil and perceived evil you must confess if you have done the evils otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

So if we repent that gives us the green light to condemn people doing what we did.

Is that based on the assumption that you are not that person anymore or on the assumption that God has forgiven you or is it both?
 
As God comes first for a Catholic it follows that it is chiefly if not solely because God has forgiven. If God comes first then its the only way to honour him for forgiving.

This is promotion of hypocrisy. Repenting only gives us the green light to condemn evils we committed ourselves prior to repentance if it is focused on the person turning over a new and better leaf. The only way to prove that you would have done differently is by putting you in a time machine to repeat the past. It is easy to tell yourself that if you intend to stop doing evil that if you had the past repeated you would not have done the evil you did.