A List of Christian Hypocrisies

CHRISTIANS: SANITY SAYS:
Jesus taught that the most important commandment of all is to love God above all things and with all ones heart and the second commandment is to love ones neighbour as oneself. A belief is clearly put before people.  It is callous to do that.  No matter how much a Christian does for others, if he loves God the way Jesus wanted, he or she is only using people to please God.  It is not real love for them.  Jesus said that if you don't visit prisoners for example it is really God you are not visiting.  That highlights the point.  If there is a choice between loving God and loving neighbour clearly the neighbour should lose out if Jesus is right.  The doctrine that both loves go together is only meant for people who can do one and the other. 
When people reject the gospel, it is a caricature of the gospel they reject Any religion can say the same.  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."
Living in houses, having cars, eating out, having bank accounts etc.  It is possible to live and be healthy and happy without modern accessories. 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.
Human life is so valuable that it is not right to put a dying and suffering person on their way 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.
Abortion is wrong at all stages for life begins at conception 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
The right to life of the child from conception is equal to the right of the mother To place a ball of cells on the same level as the woman is pure insanity
Prostitution is demeaning and wrong 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?
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. 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.
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. 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.
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.  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.
Belief in God helps us to be more positive and optimistic for he is with us by our side Religion is forced to tell this lie these days in order to make atheism look antisocial and to hide the fact that the belief has nothing to commend it.  The doctrine can hardly be described by them as espousing optimism when they hold that he sends some people to Hell forever.  Better that there be no God than that happen.  They are so malicious that they refuse to admit that.  Also belief does nothing to prevent depression and sickness.  It only makes depressed people worse to tell them they should find peace in God meaning its their own fault for not having peace.  We should do good for itself and not because there is a God.  If we don't then we are doing good for the sake of dogma and not good - the good is really false goodness.  If the belief is just for keeping us in line then why care what people believe as long as they believe in some force maybe even karma that returns wrong for wrong or metes out punishment?  To promote God then would be a sign of having greater interest in getting people to flatter you by believing what you believe than in keeping them good.

You only can believe in God.  Suffering is proven to exist and God is not and it is evil to condone suffering for a belief.  It is simply inexcusable to come up with a doctrine that requires you to condone God allowing suffering.  Its even worse when that doctrine fails to cause people to do good.  People are going to do good anyway.

 
Promiscuity is bad 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.
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. 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.
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. 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!
Tyranny is wrong, dictatorship is wrong 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
If we annul a marriage, we don't declare the children of that marriage to be illegitimate Illegitimate means that the babies should not have been born.  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. 
It is okay to have a relationship with a married person awaiting annulment and to pray that the marriage will be annulled 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.
Converts should make a commitment to the gospel for life.  Baptism is for expressing that commitment. In other words, don't change your mind.  Don't be open to evidence that disproves your faith or religion.
God made marriage indissoluble to protect marriage and the family 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.
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 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." 

Cancer patients may take morphine though it makes them high 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?
You may say a sick or dying person, "Everything is going to be all right.  Don't be scared." That is the sin of presuming that God won't let them suffer any more.  It is okay 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.
Don't accept X into your charity to collect money for he or she defrauded others some years ago.  They are saying it is probable that that person will steal again.
Heaven is a state of great happiness caused by being with God for all eternity Many of the saints reported that they felt terrible though God was with them.  They reported decades of depression called the dark night of the soul.  The happiness does not come from knowing God but must be implanted by him for happiness is a power.  Religion says Heaven is about being with God who is good and not about being happy though the happiness will be given to us.  From that it follows that anybody who is comforted by Heaven in their suffering is after the happiness more than God and is sinning and so will not get to Heaven.  The Church offers a futile heaven and a superficial salvation.
The universe like the Bible shows forth the glory and goodness of God Then why do you try to do better than him by vetting couples who intend to adopt children?  God gives babies to anybody whether they are suited to having a family or not.
John was forced by the man who threatened to kill John's family to rob the bank so he is not guilty of sin And you accept the repentance of people on their deathbed as valid when they panic that they might go to Hell for all eternity as if it were a free sane act.
God lets people suffer for a reason 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.
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 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.
Religion has no room for violence 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?  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 insecure.  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.
God allows us to have paid ministries 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
Slander is wrong 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
Going to healing shrines approved by the Church is good 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.
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 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.. 
God punished Jesus in our place for our sins so that he could forgive us 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. 
We must love the sinner and hate the sin.  Homosexuality is an objective disorder but we are not saying homosexuals are disordered. It is not sins we hate but what they say about the person doing them.  We don't hate a bad person's actions but the bad character of the person and which is the person. 

To separate sin from sinner is to pretend that the sinner is not a sinner.  If we do that we must pretend that the person doing good is not a person doing good.  We must do wrong against good people by pretending they are not what their actions say they are to please this wonderful Christian faith. 

Sin and sinner is a distinction without a difference. 

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 lie to themselves that their personal feelings about having wrong done to them is not about the person.  Of course its personal.  You don't get angry at a sin but the sinner.  Would you cut a prostitute to pieces and expect her to believe you if you said it wasn't personal but you were doing it not out of hatred for her but hatred for her sin?  All you are doing is making yourself enjoy your hate better and inflating your self-righteousness.

Christian forgiveness is very fake.  It would work if it was sins you forgave and not bad characters.  If you forgive a bad character you are saying that person should be treated as if he or she were a good character.   That is condoning the sin.
We must pray and thank God for what he gives us God is all powerful and doesn't need our thanks.  Rights are based on needs and since God doesn't need it he doesn't have the right to our thanks.  If we thank God for our sake and not for his then that is not thanks at all.  Christians commonly teach, "Thank God though he doesn't need it because it is good for you to exercise gratitude."
We uphold human rights 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.
Jane has to look after her ailing father all by herself for the family won't help her and we feel compassion for her 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.
The sacraments are rituals that put God's grace in you 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.