Religious Hypocrisy
I believe this is a good thread to talk about things one believes is hypocritical about any religion. Please do not give names(of people) - and try to make thy arguments as general as possible - as this is not meant as a flaming thread, but rather it is meant as a place of insight, knowledge - and inspire people to better understand the beliefs of others.
One of the greatest hypocrisies to me, seems the story of Adam and Eve.
I mean, God tells them not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because then they would know good from evil, but doesn't that assume that they already know that eating from that tree or at least disobeying God is evil? And since they don't, why can he punish them for that. Sounds rather mean to me. I guess, that's not quite what the thread is about, but still.
I'll go first. I have a bit of a gripe with Buddhism and the whole "tolerance" stance to it. I believe that "tolerance" is something that all need to practice(when confronted with beliefs unlike their own) to a limited degree. However - I also think that this can only be taken so far, particularly when individuals are confronted with obvious atrocious and abysmal moral behaviour(rape, murder, molestation, drugs...)
In addition - there seems to be no real defined moral compass to Buddhism(correct me if I'm wrong however) And individuals are left up to their own devices - to determine what "truth" represents.
So here comes the major hypocritical part - if a Buddhist were to cause some type of harm to another Buddhist(like steal something, cause physical harm to) then the perpetrator could simply pass it off as being a "relative truth" - and insinuate that his "truth" did not dictate such actions were harmful. With no true moral compass - I can't see how any Buddhist can clearly call themselves tolerant of anything - since one only has to justify the "truth" of their own actions to themself...
Thoughts?
EDIT: I stand corrected..I'll go second..He..He..He..
Originally posted by Bardock42
One of the greatest hypocrisies to me, seems the story of Adam and Eve.I mean, God tells them not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because then they would know good from evil, but doesn't that assume that they already know that eating from that tree or at least disobeying God is evil? And since they don't, why can he punish them for that. Sounds rather mean to me. I guess, that's not quite what the thread is about, but still.
The story is about duality and is not supposed to be taken literially.
Originally posted by Bardock42
One of the greatest hypocrisies to me, seems the story of Adam and Eve.I mean, God tells them not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because then they would know good from evil, but doesn't that assume that they already know that eating from that tree or at least disobeying God is evil? And since they don't, why can he punish them for that. Sounds rather mean to me. I guess, that's not quite what the thread is about, but still.
Thou makes an interesting point - to be quite honest I can't answer the entire question(as I do not have a complete understanding of God). But using the limited knowledge he has provided me with -- I can give a limited explination.
I don't really think the story implies that man inherently knew the difference between good and evil at the time - but rather, it presents the possibility of disobeying God to man. Or it gives man this magical thing called "choice." I believe if man had graciously asked God for this knowledge - of what good and evil was, rather than choose to disobey him - such knowledge would have been freely and lovingly given to them. Instead, man choose to go the other route(which was to disobey) - rather than to graciously inquire this knowledge from their creator.
Now if God had given them this knowledge(of good and evil) before hand - then what choice would they have had? The answer is simple, they wouldn't have had one at all.
Perhaps God thought, that in order to have a truly loving relationship with man - choice would have to be offered to him, regardless of the consequences that could ensue, and in order to justify himself as being a truly loving God.
Of course Satan did play a part in man's fall from grace - so of course, God was very merciful on man after this fall, since the choice was not entirely based on man's selfish disobedience.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
I'll go first. I have a bit of a gripe with Buddhism and the whole "tolerance" stance to it. I believe that "tolerance" is something that all need to practice(when confronted with beliefs unlike their own) to a limited degree. However - I also think that this can only be taken so far, particularly when individuals are confronted with obvious atrocious and abysmal moral behaviour(rape, murder, molestation, drugs...)In addition - there seems to be no real defined moral compass to Buddhism(correct me if I'm wrong however) And individuals are left up to their own devices - to determine what "truth" represents.
So here comes the major hypocritical part - if a Buddhist were to cause some type of harm to another Buddhist(like steal something, cause physical harm to) then the perpetrator could simply pass it off as being a "relative truth" - and insinuate that his "truth" did not dictate such actions were harmful. With no true moral compass - I can't see how any Buddhist can clearly call themselves tolerant of anything - since one only has to justify the "truth" of their own actions to themself...
Thoughts?
EDIT: I stand corrected..I'll go second..He..He..He..
Buddhists are not taught to tolerate violence. Only each other's differences. Violence is a violation according to the Buddha, so things like Murder, Rape, and the like are always wrong to every Buddhist.
Just to enlighten you further, according to the Buddha, Ignorance and False Views are two of the roots of all evil.
Blind Faith is also considered dangerous and non-progressive.
Funny enough, Christianity has been guilty of violence, ignorance, false views, AND Blind Faith ! 😱
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Thou makes an interesting point - to be quite honest I can't answer the entire question(as I do not have a complete understanding of God). But using the limited knowledge he has provided me with -- I can give a limited explination.
As we all can only do....no worries here. 🙂
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
I don't really think the story implies that man inherently knew the difference between good and evil at the time - but rather, it presents the possibility of disobeying God to man. Or it gives man this magical thing called "choice."
What choice is there then, if man could not decipher the difference beforehand ?
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
I believe if man had graciously asked God for this knowledge - of what good and evil was, rather than choose to disobey him - such knowledge would have been freely and lovingly given to them. Instead, man choose to go the other route(which was to disobey) - rather than to graciously inquire this knowledge from their creator.
Because Satan basically brainwashed Adam and Eve into doing something they had no real idea was wrong. If Adam and Eve did not know Good and Evil, then how would they know it was evil to eat from the tree?
On top of that, you have Satan, a master manipulator, an ex-angel with probably centuries of experience at existance, picking on two innocent and unknowing people.
What the hell did God think was going to happen by allowing Satan in the fkn Garden ?
It's like if a parent purposely allows a child molestor or a wolf near his or her children.....
God should have never allowed Satan in the garden if he truly wanted Adam and Eve to exorcise their OWN TRUE CHOICE.
Because Satan is so much smarter and more powerful than Adam and Eve, there was almost no way Adam or Eve would have the maturity or knowledge to repel this temptation.
The choice to eat the fruit was not genuinely thier own. Therefore, Satan and Satan alone should have been punished. Not Adam and Eve. And for that matter, why Adam and Eve's future generations should be punished for a crime that occured before thier existance?
To say that all of us here on Earth suffer because Eve ate a fruit...is absurd. We didn't exist back then, so we have no responsibility towards it. That is like punishing a child born of rape as punishment for the fact that his father raped his mother.
Not to mention it implies the Human Race is spawned of Incest. Religious people get offended from the fact that we evolved from apes, but they are perfectly fine with the myth that the human race was birthed from Incest..... 🤨
The entire Adam and Eve story is a large contradiction.....
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Now if God had given them this knowledge(of good and evil) before hand - then what choice would they have had? The answer is simple, they wouldn't have had one at all.
The same way they had no real choice when Satan got involved. God allowed a wolf near his children. God is just as guilty as Satan for allowing this to happen.
You know, some people say that there are all types of evil. There are people who DO EVIL, and people who SEE EVIL BEING DONE and do NOTHING about it....
Which do you think God and Satan fall under ?
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Perhaps God thought, that in order to have a truly loving relationship with man - choice would have to be offered to him, regardless of the consequences that could ensue, and in order to justify himself as being a truly loving God.
But why not have the choice be THIER OWN ? Why did Satan have to be involved ? I am pretty sure that Adam and Eve would have just obeyed God out of thier own free will, if Satan were not involved.
Or maybe they both would have eaten the fruit on thier own ? Who knows...but the point is, that without Satan's involvement, the CHOICE would have been thier own, and not a poisonous result of Satan's presence that God allowed.
It's like God is just WAITING to be BETRAYED ! The Masochist !
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Of course Satan did play a part in man's fall from grace - so of course, God was very merciful on man after this fall, since the choice was not entirely based on man's selfish disobedience.
God was merciful by banishing Adam and Eve from the Garden into a world of misery and condemning thier future generations (us) to Hell ? 🤨
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Buddhists are not taught to tolerate violence. Only each other's differences. Violence is a violation according to the Buddha, so things like Murder, Rape, and the like are always wrong to every Buddhist.Just to enlighten you further, according to the Buddha, Ignorance and False Views are two of the roots of all evil.
Such differences equate to different interpretations of what "violence" is. Again, from my limited understanding of Buddhism - and from my limited interactions with those whom I have encountered who are Buddhists - no type of morality is truly written in stone within its doctrines.
For example, some Buddhists believe it is not "violent" to kill an unborn child - however, they also believe it is "violent" and "intolerant" to fight against an individual, who believes killing the unborn is okay. This is blatant hypocrisy - as the more tolerant individual, would obviously have enough tolerance within them to accept the right to life of the unborn.
Another example would be molestation. Some might believe its okay for an adult to engage in intercourse with a 7 year old, others might find this abysmal(which it clearly is) However, a strict Buddhist would take the "middle ground" in such a situation -- and declare that having sex with a 7 year old -- would be okay in some situations.
So to me - Buddhism is all very clearly a hypocritcal - and often times absurd faith - rooted in conceit self centeredness, and delusion. I also have found that many who follow Buddhism are generally lazy and laxidasical as well, caring more about their own needs - as opposed to the needs of others. Of course this rationale can also be found in believers of other faiths, however, Buddhism is the only faith that I know of(other than Satanism), who proudly professes this "do what makes you feel good" doctrine.
This is not to say that all Buddhist's are delusional and conceited, as some have a fairly good moral compass as to knowing what right and wrong truly represents. This is to say that Buddhism, however, as a whole, offers very little true "tolerance" or love, except when the situation pertains strictly to individual wants and needs.
Yet its practicioners cleverly mask it as being loving, by promising to absolve others of any guilt that they have -- regarding personal and/or nonpersonal responsabilities.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Blind Faith is also considered dangerous and non-progressive.Funny enough, Christianity has been guilty of violence, ignorance, false views, AND Blind Faith ! 😱
Christ never asked believers to have "blind faith." This is either a misunderstanding or a purposeful misreprentation on your part(I'm leaning more towards the latter, based on our other discussions).
What he does tell us is to be informed, to always ask - and to always question the motives of the spirits around us. Or in other words, we are to be "wise as serpents" but "gentle as lambs." Still, there is only a certain degree of wisdom one can have - and after a point, one has to reconcile belief with faith, as oppossed to their own knowledge or understanding. I have faith in God's love, because of what he has done for me(the cross) and believe that he has nothing but good intentions based on this sacrifice.
Even with this faith - Christ has provided us all with many "works" and much wisdom(and knowledge of God) during his visit to earth, which would make it next to impossible for one to believe -- that there wasn't something supernatural about him. As it is so appropriately stated in the scriptures - even the "fool" knows that there is a God. And to this I would add - even the "fool" knows that he is loving.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
God should have never allowed Satan in the garden if he truly wanted Adam and Eve to exorcise their OWN TRUE CHOICE.God was merciful by banishing Adam and Eve from the Garden into a world of misery and condemning thier future generations (us) to Hell ?
🤨Not to mention it implies the Human Race is spawned of Incest. Religious people get offended from the fact that we evolved from apes, but they are perfectly fine with the myth that the human race was birthed from Incest.....
I've only included these 3 arguments because -- the rest of what you posted was essentially the same thing, regurgitaed over and over again, (either for the sake of confusion or willfull ignorance no doubt) and had already been answered.
On to the first point -
You are giving Satan way too much credit regarding his abilities. And you are looking at this from the perspective that is just beneficial to Adam and Eve. God...being loving, presents his love to all of his creations..for he loves them all the same, this even includes Satan and his followers(other fallen angels).
Perhaps God, wanted to give not just Adam and Eve - the opportunity to choose Good(or God), but perhaps he was also giving Satan a similar opportunity as well. Regardless, he did not force Satan to convice Adam and Eve to take the fruit, however, he did give him the choice to do so --with the hope perhaps that he too -- may have accepted this newfound creation with loving intentions, instead of attempting to destroy it.
This is all just my interpretation of course, so don't hold it as fact.
Regarding your second point -
Yes, God was indeed merciful in banishing Adam and Eve. He never openly condemned them to Hell, however, he did state that they would die because of their disobedience. Of course we all know, that he did make provisions for them to return to him - thru his sacrifice on the cross. No one has to go to hell, if they truly show true love for Christ and his sacrifice(true love for Christ representing obedience to his loving principles, which of course for Christians includes not being hypcritical of them)
Your final point -
The incest thing is a bit confusing - and I don't have complete understanding of it, but I'll try to explain it as best as I can with the limited knowledge that I have.
God never encouraged sexual relations between Adam or Eve with their children, however, he did allow their children -- to have such interactions with each other upon marriage. This was the only logical thing that could be done at the time, to allow man to be "fruitful and multiply."
Individuals lived much longer back in those days, so after several thousand years - there were more than enough people around on earth, and there was no longer need to engage in marriage with siblings.
One also must not forget - that when sin was presented into this world, it offered a whole host of genetic defects. The original man(Adam) didn't have such defects - so there was not an immediate concern for this. However, as time progressed, and sin increased, these defects became more apparent. The best way to rid a family line of a potential genetic defect, was to breed with a non direct relative(distant cousins and what not).
Interbreeding within closely knit families - also seemed to cause harm to the social structure after a bit - so of course, God being logical and thinking through all of the above referenced things - decided to put a ban on such activities, as they were no longer necessary.
Hopefully these explanations will suffice..but if not at least you can't say that no Christian ever tried to explain them to you.
* yes and apparently, the violation Adam and Eve committed was the reason why all humans die, have illnesses, etc... the issue of incest is not applicable in the time of Adam and Eve because they were commanded to multiply, and being the earliest humans, their physical attributes were close to perfect if not for death and sicknesses so there won't be any problem... in genetics, if we commit incest in our time, there would be physical deficiencies on the offspring, not like in the time of Adam and Eve... 😉
Originally posted by peejaydThis makes so much sense. 😐
* yes and apparently, the violation Adam and Eve committed was the reason why all humans die, have illnesses, etc... the issue of incest is not applicable in the time of Adam and Eve because they were commanded to multiply, and being the earliest humans, their physical attributes were close to perfect if not for death and sicknesses so there won't be any problem... in genetics, if we commit incest in our time, there would be physical deficiencies on the offspring, not like in the time of Adam and Eve... 😉
Originally posted by peejayd
* it may or may not be a lie... it can go either way if we look at it in a general perspective... the beauty of life is not always perceived one-sided, right? there is beauty you see your way, i see beauty my way, others see beauty their way... 😉
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Do you thnk a Fundamental Christian can see the beauty in Paganism, Islam, Athiesm, Homosexuality, and other non-Christian cultures ?
Ah...I see you've managed to skip responding to all my previous statements, and post an off topic question(to detract from being confronted with - things that were difficult for you to accept or acknowledge no doubt).
Now to directly answer your question - I believe that a loving person(one filled with the holy spirit), can indeed find redeemable qualities in just about anyone or anything(if such a thing possesses such qualities) However - this type of person, being filled with this holy spirit - is also capable of recognizing truth.
With this truth, one is able to understand the differences between loving and unloving behaviour. Thus, this type of individual(like the God they worship) cannot to see such unloving behaviour passed off as beauty, acceptable, or truthful(all of which make up true love..not the worldly imitation of it - mind you).
So yes, a loving Christian(like their lord and saviour - Jesus Christ) can indeed find beauty in even the most abysmal things(as abysmal as they might be themselves to Christ at times) However, empowered by the holy spirit(graciously given to them by Christ) they understand the difference between either the true "beauty", or the true beast emerging before them.
Does thou understand where I'm going with this Urizen?
Perhaps not - so let me extrapolate...
True beauty is not in the eye of the beholder - but is only demonstrated by those who are beholden to it.
Good day to you Urizen. God bless.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Ah...I see you've managed to skip responding to all my previous statements, and post an off topic question(to detract from being confronted with - things that were difficult for you to accept or acknowledge no doubt).
Not really...I will confront them in due time, I have been overloaded with school, other debates, and personal life right now.
Sorry if you feel that you spent so much time on a response to me and that I ripped you off by ignoring it. That is not the case.
I feel much of what you wrote is a repetition of what you had said before, and that this argument will only go in circles. That is why I avoided an answer beforehand, but I promise you I will respond to all posts you made as accurately and completely as I can soon.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Now to directly answer your question - I believe that a loving person(one filled with the holy spirit), can indeed find redeemable qualities in just about anyone or anything(if such a thing possesses such qualities) However - this type of person, being filled with this holy spirit - is also capable of recognizing truth.
I understand this already. You have stated this numerous times, but I do not buy it. Can you prove to me that a true Christian sees absolute truth and beauty, while all other perspectives are false ?
Or would that require I become "born again". I do not buy this whole "born again" bullshit, because Evangelics by and large are some of the most popular and common hypocrits to date. Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, George Bush and the like impress me not.
I was Christian myself for 18 years, so I am not ignorant of the religion in any way,shape, or form.
I worshipped God for 18 years of my life, prayed every night, closed my mind to anything that didn't fit in with my little Biblical philosophy until I WOKE UP and realized what a lie of a life I've been having.
I wasted 18 years with that false Faith, but atleast I learned in the end.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
With this truth, one is able to understand the differences between loving and unloving behaviour. Thus, this type of individual(like the God they worship) cannot to see such unloving behaviour passed off as beauty, acceptable, or truthful(all of which make up true love..not the worldly imitation of it - mind you).
Really ?
What are the differences? Anything that goes against the Bible is hate, while anything that follows the Bible is love ?
Once agian.....I don't buy it... ❌
The Bible is filled with both Love and Hate in my eyes. Condeming homosexuals to death and placing women as second class is hardly loving in my perspective, as well as in the perspectives of many others.
Jesus Christ was a great man. St. Paul was not. St. Paul taught more hatred and intolerance than any other writer, and he certainly knew how to condemn, condemn, condemn, and reverse a lot of what Christ said.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
So yes, a loving Christian(like their lord and saviour - Jesus Christ) can indeed find beauty in even the most abysmal things(as abysmal as they might be themselves to Christ at times) However, empowered by the holy spirit(graciously given to them by Christ) they understand the difference between either the true "beauty", or the true beast emerging before them.
Ask yourself what beauty and beast exists with Christianity as a whole ? I see much beauty beast within the Bible and throughout Christianity's history.
Violence, Intolerance, Hate, and closed mindedness are NOT BEAUTY..those are the REAL BEASTS, and Christianity is GUILTY of having possessed these beastly attributes throughout its history, even until today.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Does thou understand where I'm going with this Urizen?
I understand, but I do not agree ❌
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Perhaps not - so let me extrapolate...
This is so cute ! I love how you insult me with the most innocent of techniques ! Big ups big ups
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
True beauty is not in the eye of the beholder - but is only demonstrated by those who are beholden to it.
See...this is the claim you always make but can never truly back up. That only devout Christians recognize beauty, that only Christians know real Love, that only Christians know the Truth...
Even though their are aspects of reality that contradict everything Christianity tries to push, you still insist on the claim that Christianity reveals truth, while all else, all other perspectives including my own, are evil lies.
That is a big claim to make...can you please back it up ?
And please...no biblical quotes. Trying to prove the validity of the Bible by using the Bible itself is like me saying, " I am right, because I say I am right" 😆
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Good day to you Urizen. God bless.
I don't know if this is sincere or not, but Thanks. I know this is usually meant as a complimentary "good bye" in your religion, so I appreciate it and just say "God Bless you too"