I suppose that it should come as no surprise by now, but many take hypocracy literally. They suggest that they are free to condemn you if they do not do the exact same action themselves.
Someone will say, "Homosexuality is wrong. You should live a sexless life alone, free of romance, to please God. That is the only way that you will be acceptable in his eyes." They will say that their own sexual propriety isn't under question, because while they may or may not be having premarital sex themselves, it is heterosexual sex, and therefore, not as bad as gay sex.
In other words, they forgive their sin (sorry, fornication is listed in the bible far more times), while condemning that of another.
They will acknowledge the value of having a companion, that marriage is far more about love and devotion and companionship than sex, and then tell the other to live a solitary life, and that all gay coupling is is sex and lust (even if it is a committed 20 years long. That must be some gooooood sex.)
They will claim that one cannot cleanse or forgive their own sin, and yet, only repenting of homosexuality (doing the action yourself) will cleanse and forgive you. They will claim that one must repent of all sin first, but sing for themselves, "Just as I am, without one plea...oh, lamb of God, I come.." but you can't come as you are. You have to change.
"Jesus isn't through with me yet...", but you are expected to change yourself (and if that were true, why do you need Jesus at all?)
They will condemn gay men for promiscuity, but be hypocritical by the labeling of "gay" before "men", since men in general are promiscuous. By attaching the label, they are saying, "Gay men", but not straight men, which is just plain laughable.
They will claim that they love their neighbor, and yet, fight against gay rights that protect them from unlawful termination of employment, access to housing and health care.
They will say that marriage is a Religious institution, so it can't be extended to gay people, and then extend it to other religions, and even atheists.
Is one not being hypocritical not acknowledge that understanding has changed, and our understanding of homosexuality has radically changed just in the past 50 years, but then claim that it is understand and spoken of in the bible? Is one not a hypocrite to gleefully quote Leviticus, and ignore everything else that they themselves don't follow? Can one claim to follow the bible to the letter, except ignore verses condoning slavery, or women forbidden to speak in church, then point to arbitrary verses of idol worship, and expect them to be followed?
Someone argued this with me, taking it much more literal.
Does it make sense for a guy who smokes pot to condemn a guy who gets drunk?
Does it make sense to condemn for wearing a hijab and worshipping a false god, when you can't love that person as yourself, and follow your own religion?
It seems ridiculous to believe that one has the right to condemn others at all, let alone, earned the right if they don't do the same transgression. Following that logic, in regards to the woman about to be stoned to death, all of the men would have to have been adulterers. I just don't buy it.
Even the Pharisee, who condemned the theives and taxcollectors, who did not cheat people collecting taxes himself, nor steal, was not exhalted in God's eyes, but disgusted, and humbled.
Someone will say, "Homosexuality is wrong. You should live a sexless life alone, free of romance, to please God. That is the only way that you will be acceptable in his eyes." They will say that their own sexual propriety isn't under question, because while they may or may not be having premarital sex themselves, it is heterosexual sex, and therefore, not as bad as gay sex.
In other words, they forgive their sin (sorry, fornication is listed in the bible far more times), while condemning that of another.
They will acknowledge the value of having a companion, that marriage is far more about love and devotion and companionship than sex, and then tell the other to live a solitary life, and that all gay coupling is is sex and lust (even if it is a committed 20 years long. That must be some gooooood sex.)
They will claim that one cannot cleanse or forgive their own sin, and yet, only repenting of homosexuality (doing the action yourself) will cleanse and forgive you. They will claim that one must repent of all sin first, but sing for themselves, "Just as I am, without one plea...oh, lamb of God, I come.." but you can't come as you are. You have to change.
"Jesus isn't through with me yet...", but you are expected to change yourself (and if that were true, why do you need Jesus at all?)
They will condemn gay men for promiscuity, but be hypocritical by the labeling of "gay" before "men", since men in general are promiscuous. By attaching the label, they are saying, "Gay men", but not straight men, which is just plain laughable.
They will claim that they love their neighbor, and yet, fight against gay rights that protect them from unlawful termination of employment, access to housing and health care.
They will say that marriage is a Religious institution, so it can't be extended to gay people, and then extend it to other religions, and even atheists.
Is one not being hypocritical not acknowledge that understanding has changed, and our understanding of homosexuality has radically changed just in the past 50 years, but then claim that it is understand and spoken of in the bible? Is one not a hypocrite to gleefully quote Leviticus, and ignore everything else that they themselves don't follow? Can one claim to follow the bible to the letter, except ignore verses condoning slavery, or women forbidden to speak in church, then point to arbitrary verses of idol worship, and expect them to be followed?
Someone argued this with me, taking it much more literal.
Does it make sense for a guy who smokes pot to condemn a guy who gets drunk?
Does it make sense to condemn for wearing a hijab and worshipping a false god, when you can't love that person as yourself, and follow your own religion?
It seems ridiculous to believe that one has the right to condemn others at all, let alone, earned the right if they don't do the same transgression. Following that logic, in regards to the woman about to be stoned to death, all of the men would have to have been adulterers. I just don't buy it.
Even the Pharisee, who condemned the theives and taxcollectors, who did not cheat people collecting taxes himself, nor steal, was not exhalted in God's eyes, but disgusted, and humbled.
Upvote
0
