Christians are Hypocrites
Hypocrisy often describes a person with double standards.  A better way to understand it is referring to how people pretend to follow a standard they don't follow.  We all pretend to follow a standard we do not follow.  For example, to love a good person is to hate a bad one because to love x means to hate what is not x or that would destroy or corrupt it.  Love and hate go together for to hate one is to love that one's opposite.  To say you hate judging people is to lie for you are admitting to hating people who judge righteously.


The thing that turns most Christians, who leave their religion, off Christianity is the shocking hypocrisy displayed by this faith. The clergy are the worst offenders and soon have the most dedicated of the congregation as bad as themselves. The hypocrisy is far worse than many of the ex-Christians notice. It is those who know their religion better that see just how deceitful and hypocritical religion is. And that is something we must try to get across. And that is the task that this study seeks to undertake.
Christians condone their God allowing evil and they make excuses for him when it would suit them better sacrifice all worldly benefits for the poor instead. If you are going to condone something that seems terrible that is the least that can be expected of you!


Christians do things such as talk about love and mercy but these are promoted in such a vague way and they know people cannot agree on how to implement them that the talk is more about feel-good and manipulation than anything else. 




Jesus said that God comes first meaning that belief in God and obedience to him comes first. It follows then that it is better to be a hypocrite with atheism than one with Christianity. The Christian fake is asking to be seen as a hypocrite of the lowest order. Some think this principle explains why Jesus never said a word about the hypocrisy of the Romans but never stopped ranting against that of the Jewish leaders. The Romans didn't believe in God and the Jews did. They only think that though - it is more likely that Jesus himself was just a hypocrite.
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.
Hypocrites can be very shameless and be arrogant enough to brush off any criticism and carry on. If they feel part of a hypocritical culture this will reinforce their hypocrisy. Hypocrites can and do teach religious doctrines despite it being as plain as day that the doctrines are nonsense. They do this because they have an audience that is sufficiently as bad as themselves. Liars who want you believe what they know your head will tell you is crap have to act as if they believe the lies themselves in order to gradually melt down your resistance. You will end up thinking they really believe it.

Take for example the notion that God does all he can to keep us out of the eternal punishment of Hell. No sillier doctrine could ever be dreamed of.
The Church gives out absolute negative teachings such as “Thou shalt not steal”. It denies that such teachings have exceptions. For example, a man may be starving in a famine and steal a loaf from his rich greedy employer. The Catechism of the Catholic Church however alleges that this is not theft but survival. It is taking not stealing and there is no command not to take. The reasonable person can see that it is justifiable stealing.
The Church seems to be saying that the intention is what makes the difference. It does not. There is more to an action that just intention. A man who has sex with a prostitute for he feels that it puts a spark in his marriage is still a cheater an intending to be one. The man can still intend it to be stealing though he needs to do it.
A religion can only expect a right to honour if it has less hypocrites than any other religion or non-religion. Religion should not have prestige and glamour and power and money if it leaves its people no better than people in general. The bigger the claims of the religion, the more magical they are, the more demanding they are, the lower the hypocrite percentage should be. In this light the religions who say, "We have a problem with hypocrites yes but we never promised our members would be perfect" are missing - deliberately? - the point. If a religion has no innate or supernatural power to be a hospital for sinners, then rather than helping people it is either doing nothing for them or making them worse.
Christians argue that they do not believe in treating people simply as a means to an end. But they do. Their end is pleasing God by looking after his creations. Also, they say that it is okay to treat people as a means to an end as long as it is not simply as a means to an end. What use is that doctrine? How much of a means will they be? 40% 99%? The treating of a person as an end requires that you keep making sure that if you are using them as a means that you are communicating with them if things can be improved for them so in that way you treat them also as an end. An example would be shirt factory boss and the machinist. They are a means of profit to the boss but he is to treat them as people and show them gratitude. Nobody does that ...
Actions are either wrong in themselves or wrong because of the bad results. Christians generally mix the two positions but if the first is true then consequences never matter and if the second is true then actions being wrong in themselves is nonsense. For example, the Roman Catholic Church claims that homosexuality is wrong in itself irrespective of any bad consequences and then says that just war is right because of the bad consequences of not fighting the enemy. This changing things to fit what they want to believe shows that hypocrisy is at the root of their spirituality.
The Church has society using f for fuck and c for cunt when reporting what somebody said or whatever. When people hear the f or c they know what it means and so the Church may as well use the word fuck and cunt. The hypocrisy is astonishing.


Publicans who keep alcoholics battering their wives are welcome in the Church and given communion as if they are in good standing.  They don't even have to confess in confession how they enable the self-destruction of so many.  "Somebody else will give them the drink if not me" is only an excuse.  It is not a reason for you to get involved.
Another proof of this is how they say that hating a person is never right and then order us to hate sin which is hating the sinner. Jesus commanded us to hate sin intensely when he said that if your hand causes you to sin cut it off to signify that extreme hatred of sin is his law. If you love God with all your heart as Jesus commanded you will automatically hate sin with all your heart. None of us will live long if we start that for the stress would destroy us. But he said we must carry our cross and die for him. You can’t separate the sin from the sinner for the sinner is the free creator of the act. Suppose you hate blue and want to destroy it. Suppose your white tablecloth turns itself blue of its own free will. Can you really love the tablecloth as much as before? It has become blue which you hate. You cannot love it. In the same way the sinner becomes sin and to hate the sin is to hate the sinner. It is the people who do not hate sin that we find likeable. He who says he loves you and hates your sin is a liar. If you believed that you would not take offence when people chastise you for your sins. Even when the sin is forgiven you still have to hate it for it still existed and is still evil. You forgive a person rather than a sin which is admitting that the sin cannot be separated from the sinner so the sinner deserved to be hated. Yet the Church teaches now that nobody deserves to be hated. It's all simpering hypocrisy and contradictions. The Church knows it's hypocrisy for the Church doesn’t shrug off criticisms of its sins saying that it is the sins being condemned not the Church being condemned as sinful. It takes offence for it knows that sin is not something that is separate from the Church when the Church sins but something more. To condemn sin is to condemn a person as a sinner.
Love your neighbour as yourself which is the second greatest commandment of the Christian faith having been laid down by Jesus is hypocrisy. Self-preservation is the strongest power and instinct in us so you simply cannot care for a stranger as much as yourself. You cannot love a sinner and hate his sin. As Jesus said, you cannot serve two masters God and anything else. So how can you serve God and serve your self-preservation instinct?
To love God above all as Christ commanded and to love your neighbour as yourself implies that you should be responsible in your religious activities and attitudes. Since God comes first it is more important to be responsible in religion than in your own family. But nearly all Christians are theologically illiterate and have no interest in learning their faith better and why their religion does what it does. They are treated as good people despite the greatest sin possible: irresponsibility.  


When God comes first you have to be extremely sure that what you have is God’s word. Christians do not believe the Bible because they see it is right but because they want to believe in it for they are far from extremely sure.
Christ commanded that if somebody does wrong to us many times a day we must forgive him or her as many times. Christianity commands anger against sin when it demands that we hate sin and love the sinner. It pretends that when it commands us to forgive that it cares about us. It does not when it commands us to anger. And hating sin is just as bad for us if not worse than hating sinners. The doctrine of Jesus Christ that we should forgive others no matter how cruel or awful the wrong against us and that God will help us do so means that if after the most horrendous crimes against us we cannot forgive (put yourself in the position of the victims in Wolf Creek) it is our own evil fault if we fail or don't. A religion or God or prophet that tells you that you should (meaning you can and ought to) give pardon to dangerous people is evil. Do it in your own time when it is best for you. Ignore them. There is enough guilt and sorrow in life without listening to them.


God forbade banks and taking interest on loans in. He said that doing this was being like an extortioner. All taking of interest is, more or less. Yet after years of forbidding this strongly and clearly the Church has dropped its condemnation. Yet clear and constant condemnations are supposed to be infallible doctrine for tradition does not err for the Spirit guides the Church.


Christians say God asks us never to ignore the plight of the famine stricken and he gives us the grace to do what he asks.  So if there are people starving in the desert it is our fault.  That is murder by negligence.
The Christian Religion has plenty to say against sex on television but hardly anything against violence. The Christians and Catholics adored the sick snuff movie, The Passion of the Christ though it was replete with violence. The poisonous religious influence has stopped hardcore porn and images of sexual penetration being shown on television. The censors won't have it. But filmmakers, why not make synthetic erect penises and show them entering synthetic vaginas? That way real actors could perform sex scenes and filmed in such a way to make it seem that they really had sex when they didn't.

The Church claims that nothing justifies working against God or his ways. The medical profession operates by an ethical system called utilitarianism which means it is for the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. This ethic repudiates concern for God. The Church condemns utilitarianism as evil for it implies abortion may be allowed to make most people happy.

Yet the Church lets Catholics become nurses and doctors and they remain Catholics in good standing.

The Catholic Church forbids hard work on the Sabbath day. It has altered the commandment of God which forbids any work to be done even by strangers or non-believers. The sabbath commandment is routinely ignored though it is supposed to be one of the fundamental commandments - it is one of the ten commandments.




The Church says nothing when society rejects corporal punishment though the Bible makes it obligatory to batter your children and even your wife. The Church is availing of deceitful PR.


Most Christian Churches these days protest against capital punishment though their scriptures command it and though Jesus is on record as telling the Jews that if they had no sin they could stone an adulteress to death meaning that if they were not as bad as her they could kill her. To disagree is to say that Jesus did not mean it and lied. We can live and be caring people without religion and religion then is not necessary and leads to unnecessary deaths and wars which proves that its “reverence” for human life is a sham.


And only stupid people can learn of such hypocrisy towards human life and believe that the Church cares in any way for the famine-stricken.
Religion, especially traditional Christianity, is full of hypocrisy. We have only touched on some of many examples here.  Everything is about good appearances and religion is no exception.
CORRECTION AND DISCIPLINE OF CHILDREN, John R Rice, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1946
EUTHANASIA, MERCY KILLING OR MURDER? Dom Peter Flood, Faith Pamphlets, Surrey, 1973
GOSSIP GOSSIP GOSSIP Jean E Laird, Liguori, Missouri, 1980
HUMAN RIGHTS, Michael Bertram Crowe Veritas Dublin 1978
PRACTICAL ETHICS, Peter Singer, Cambridge University Press, England, 1994
WHAT BELONGS TO ANOTHER Richard H Brenan SJ, Irish Messenger Publications, Dublin, 1983  
The Dark Side, How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth, Valerie Tarico, Ph.D, Dea Press, Seattle, 2006
Why I Became an Atheist, John Loftus, Prometheus Books, New York, 2008

No Copyright