Hardly fair, this means those with high ethical standards who do their best and fail repeatedly are judged harshly while moral reprobates proud of their perversion get off free.
Sure, nehor, sure. Everyone knows that moral reprobates who are proud of their own perversions aren't judged harshly by society.
We're talking specifically about hypocrisy, not about morality in general.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
If a guy calls himself a football player, and then picks up a baseball bat, do I have to be a football player to say, "Hey dude, what's with the bat?" Or do I simply have to know the rules and conventions of football? Are retired football players not allowed to call people on poor football performance because they no longer play? There go all the coaches.
Not the same thing. How can you judge someone by a standard refuse to accept?
Well, that's not quite what you said before. You said:
Unbelievers forfeit the right to use another's Christianity against them.
But let's pretend those two statements are completely equal. If I were to say to someone, "Hey man, is calling someone a name (for instance) really the christian thing to do?" is that making a judgement? Or am I framing the question in terms that the receiver is likely to relate to? I would think that asking the question in this way is meeting the target audience on their own grounds.
If someone reminds a person that it's not very christian-like to engage in a certain behavior, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever whether the person delivering the message believes it or not. The reminder (or message) either has truth value in context, or it doesn't.
If you get a letter in the mail, do you send it back if the mailman doesn't believe the same things as you do, or if you simply don't like him/her?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Hardly fair, this means those with high ethical standards who do their best and fail repeatedly are judged harshly while moral reprobates proud of their perversion get off free.
Sure, nehor, sure. Everyone knows that moral reprobates who are proud of their own perversions aren't judged harshly by society.
We're talking specifically about hypocrisy, not about morality in general.
In my experience most of them aren't judged harshly. Hypocrisy is a nebulous term though. Does it refer to having standards you have not yet attained or something more?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Some Schmo wrote:If someone reminds a person that it's not very christian-like to engage in a certain behavior, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever whether the person delivering the message believes it or not. The reminder (or message) either has truth value in context, or it doesn't.
At the very least, the questioner informs the christian that he finds evidence that the Christian doesn't seem to believe his own message. A teacher who does not adhere to his own lessons will be ineffective and unpersuasive.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Any argument may be reduced to the absurd. I am not impressed.
This is your coy way of refusing to give the only sane answer, of course.
Just how do you decide which belief systems merit this protection, and which don't?
Why don't you go to your friends, people of responsibility and intergrity, and ask them (without referring to the internet) if you think it is honorable to post out on a telephone pole in front of somebody's house a flyer hurling vulgarties and defamations, anonymously, at the inhabitants?
Or, buying airtime on TV anonymously to make defamatory statements, and use vulgarities, in reference to the local Mormon stake president? Local rabbi?
For instance, we have four big catholic churches in my town. Would it be honorable for me to tack onto the front door of one of those churches in the early morning hours: "Father Flaherty here supports and endorses pedophiles."
Your honorable friends would say that this is sociopathic conduct. This is no different than what you do. And, I mean you.
The Nehor wrote:Hypocrisy is a nebulous term though. Does it refer to having standards you have not yet attained or something more?
I think hypocrisy deals with one of:
a lack of effort for your own standards, or
of judging others for failing to attain standards which you, yourself have not yet attained.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
The Nehor wrote:Hypocrisy is a nebulous term though. Does it refer to having standards you have not yet attained or something more?
I think hypocrisy deals with one of: a lack of effort for your own standards, or of judging others for failing to attain standards which you, yourself have not yet attained.
Is teaching standards you have not yet attained hypocrisy?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
But when that person comes into a public place, with the bank robber's mask. to defame, injure and criticize, on the one hand, while putting on a facade on the other hand, then God and society will condemn them.
Hmmm... do you think that when that person comes into a public place, without the backrobber's mask, to defame, injure, and critize, without a facade on the other hand, God and society will NOT condemn them?
What difference does the mask make?
Is it somehow less bad to kill someone if they have on a mask? Is cruelty less harmful to another if one does not know the true identify of the perpetrator?
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj