Religion and hypocrisy?

[scotpens]

I don't and never have, not even as a child. I remember losing a childhood friend over it, when I was in first grade or thereabouts. She lost her favorite doll and was terribly upset. But rather than look for it, she fell to her knees and started to pray.

"What are you doing?" I asked.

"I'm praying that God will bring my doll back."

She wasn't old enough to understand that God is too busy to be bothered with the small stuff. She should have prayed to St. Anthony.

. . . Canadians, especially Canadian politicians, are reluctant to acknowledge their subservience to God as the highest power, because He lives in the US.

Nonsense. Everybody knows that God is an Englishman. Very upper-class, by the way.

Prayers get replies? Since when? I stopped praying years ago because I never got nothing.

When did God start answering??

I don't know -- have you checked your email inbox lately?

 

[stj]

Hypocrisy has two common meanings. In one, it is shorthand for a self-serving double standard, where your sins are offensive to God (for whom I am acting,) but my sins are forgiven. This is essential to religion. Even nontheistic religions give the practitioners superiority over others. This assumption of moral superiority is often highly resented.

Formally this principle is rejected by Christians as Pharisaism. Except that Christianity also commands proselytization. Barring the power to read minds (or souls,) there is no way to distinguish testimony from show. There are probably humble Christians but they are usually chided by the true believers as being afraid to share the faith.

The other common meaning of hypocrisy is dissimulation. This kind of hypocrite lie because they are afraid of the social consequences, because they manage to convince themselves there were exceptional circumstances, because they manage to thrust consciousness of their supposed shortcomings aside, because they are basically borrowing respectability from their planned reformation. There is no reason to think religious people are any more prone to this kind of hypocrisy.

Sometimes hypocrisy is good manners, as in lying about a baby's looks. Sometimes it is a sense of appropriateness, as in not telling children there's no Santa Claus. Sometimes it is privacy, as in not volunteering details of your sexual practices. Sometimes it is capitulation to fear, as in not calling a racist joker a racist. Naturally, sometimes it is just the desire to be thought well of while still doing what isn't approved of.

But the original post talks about something that is not quite the same of "hypocrisy" in its most common meanings. The original post is talking about logical absurdity and whether people really accept it. The answer is straightforward: Religious people do not accept the validity of logic.

There are people who apparently reserve their religion for thinking they'll live forever, somehow, somewhere. And many people will forget their religion and use their basic humanity as a guide instead of scripture, as when "Christian" accept divorce.

Still, obviously there is something wrong with their minds. This is why atheism in government is a necessity. The contradiction between praising bigotry and a secular government becomes sharper and sharper, which is why atheism is a moral and political imperative.

 

[iguana_tonante]

If praying to God doesn't work, people could as well pray to me.

Praetor, I have found our saviour ~ it is the Great iguana_tonante.
I just hope he doesn't want money or ritual suicide

but they always want money or suicide. its always 'gimme your money. ok, now drink this kool-aid.'

I am magnanimous as I am powerful. You can keep you life and your wealth. I have a thing for ritual orgies and drunken debaucheries, tho.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I remember watching a program once in which a couple told that they had prayed to God to give them a car. They asked for the car to have air-conditioning.

According to them God provided them with a car. I am not sure how it actually turned up as they didn't say.

When I was watching this program the Rwanda genocide was occurring. I have no doubt that hundreds of thousands of Rwandans prayed for their lives but their prays were not answered.

I also saw a program about a plane crash. I believe there were 86 people on board and 43 lived and 43 died. One woman said she lived because she had prayed to God and he answered her prayers. Now I am sure some of the 43 who died prayed just as heard.

It annoyed me that she didn't give most of the credit to the man who politely allowed her to go before him when they were leaving the plane. She lived but he died when the plane exploded.

 

[STR]

Hey, it's not like Jesus was a VIP, he also was a nobody. They believe in a guy born 2000 years ago being the direct son of God, who got killed and returned from the dead, but they wouldn't believe a guy who says he just had a direct conversation with him?

Clearly, Jesus was able to hold is own water, whether or not you believe he could also walk on the stuff.

 

[Kestra]

Why is that? Belief only goes so far, I presume? We all seem to know it's useless, we all know that someone who thinks he heard the voice of God is crazy, but we all pray anyway, and hope for the better. But when someone actually says he got a reply, everyone thinks it's just his imagination.

You assume that it is a belief in a god who intervenes in such events, or has a personal relationship with individuals. I believe that god exists but I don't presume to know the particulars. I find it unlikely that god would actually answer our prayers individually, and the fact that disasters and illness occur despite our prayers seem evidence of this. Furthermore I realize that although I do have a strong belief in god, it's an irrational one. If someone does believe he is talking to god, I find it much more likely that there is some sort of mental issue going on than the fact that a: god exists and b: god is speaking directly to a certain individual.

And when someone dies, and everyone says to the surviving member of the family stuff like "We pray for you", isn't that a little too late?

I think that's more an expression of sympathy than anything else. You hope that they will find a way to deal with their grief and move forward with their lives. You're not saying "I pray that god will return this dead person to you."

How many of you people really believe? Or are you aware of the fact that praying is first and foremost a method to reflect about your own problems by talking to yourself, and that on the other end nobody else listens but you?

I do see prayer primarily as a form of reflection and meditation. It's a way for me to connect and reach out to the rest of the universe in my own way.

Do you really start praying when you hear that a child got kidnapped or that an earthquake destroyed an entire country. How do you think this helps the victims? Do you really expect the hand of God to come down and save them from further suffering?

I do pray for direct things sometimes, but I don't expect any results. It doesn't do any harm though, and it's my own way of expressing what I'm feeling.

When it comes to matters of my faith, I often borrow words from Shashi Tharoor. He expresses some of what I feel quite well in the following words from his novel Riot:

Why do I pray? And how? And to whom? So many questions! Well, I’m a Hindu—I was born one, and I’ve never been attracted to any other faith. I’ll tell you why in a minute. How do I pray? Not in any organized form really; I go to temples sometimes with my family but they leave me cold. I think of prayer as something intensely personal, a way of reaching my hands out towards my maker. I recite some mantras my parents taught me as a child; there is something reassuring about those ancient words, hallowed by use and repetition over thousands of years.

…

Yes, I pray to Hindu gods. It’s not that I believe that there is, somewhere in heaven, a god that looks like a Bombay calendar artist’s image of him. It’s simply a way of acknowledging a divinity beyond human experience; and since no human has had direct sight of God, all visual representations of the divine are merely limited crutches, helping flawed and limited human beings to imagine the unimaginable. Why not a corpulent elephant-headed god with a broken tusk? Why is that image any less real or inspiring of devotion than a suffering man on a cross? So yes, I pray to Ganapathi, and to Vishnu and Shiva, and to my memory of a faded calendar portrait of Rama and Sita in my parents’ prayer room. These are just ways of imagining God, and I pray in order to touch those forces and sources of life that go beyond the human.

 

[JarodRussell]

Clearly, Jesus was able to hold is own water, whether or not you believe he could also walk on the stuff.

And they know that from an almost 2000 year old book. It's funny, they won't believe that the park bench has wet paint until they touch it, but they believe that a guy walked on water without questioning it.

When it comes to matters of my faith, I often borrow words from Shashi Tharoor. He expresses some of what I feel quite well in the following words from his novel Riot: [...]

That's another curious thing I noticed. People start quoting others about their personal belief. And various "hardliners" I talked to eventually always resorted to "It's in the book. Read. Understand." No matter if it was a Christian, a Muslim or even the two Scientologists I talked to. In their case, they seemed to be really blanked. Always quoting other people, so it was really hard to know if it was really them you actually spoke to.

 

[STR]

Clearly, Jesus was able to hold is own water, whether or not you believe he could also walk on the stuff.

And they know that from an almost 2000 year old book.

I'm simply stating that the type of individual that is able to pull off building an institution that lasts 2,000 years was probably a lot more convincing, in his own right, than a Ted Haggard. If you want to stay secular, call it the difference between an Abe Lincoln and...gimmie a minute to find a good 19th century analog.

Eh... not a particularly good analog there. I'll go with US Grant rather than rewrite everything.

 

[JarodRussell]

Clearly, Jesus was able to hold is own water, whether or not you believe he could also walk on the stuff.

And they know that from an almost 2000 year old book.

I'm simply stating that the type of individual that is able to pull off building an institution that lasts 2,000 years was probably a lot more convincing, in his own right, than a Ted Haggard. If you want to stay secular, call it the difference between an Abe Lincoln and...gimmie a minute to find a good 19th century analog.

Jesus didn't build the catholic church, he didn't write the NT. If he even existed, he managed to create a fanbase of a couple of dozen followers, and after his martyrdom, he was turned into a supernatural figure. Something that was possible back then, but today, all the myths would be debunked fairly easily (which is the contradiction I'm talking about: almost nobody would believe a guy like Jesus (or stories about him) today, but at the same time, they believe in something that's from an old book). Yeah, many people would believe it, just like some seriously believe in the Xenu, or in the Mayan 2012 end of the world thing, but not the majority.

 

[Kestra]

That's another curious thing I noticed. People start quoting others about their personal belief. And various "hardliners" I talked to eventually always resorted to "It's in the book. Read. Understand." No matter if it was a Christian, a Muslim or even the two Scientologists I talked to. In their case, they seemed to be really blanked. Always quoting other people, so it was really hard to know if it was really them you actually spoke to.

I don't see why it's difficult to understand that people vary in their ability to articulate their own thoughts and feelings. Have you never read something and realized, "that's exactly how I feel"? I did my best to answer your original post (mostly in my own words), and it kind of sucks to have everything ignored except the part where I quote someone else.

Edit: Then again, that's another curious thing I've noticed. Threads are often started as a way for an individual to talk at people instead of with them, and they merely seek confirmation of their own views on the subject.

 

[Captain_Nick]

I noticed it lately blah blah blah
Cheers,
Jarod

Learn to differentiate between abstract concepts and the way these concepts are expressed in the physical world.

 

[JarodRussell]

Learn to blah blah blah.

*sigh* See, I can do that, too.

What abstract concept are you talking about? The abstract concept of praying? What do you mean?

Edit: Then again, that's another curious thing I've noticed. Threads are often started as a way for an individual to talk at people instead of with them, and they merely seek confirmation of their own views on the subject.

No, this thread was started to understand. When I ask critical question then just because I don't get your reasons to believe in this and that. It's like somebody says "I believe the moon is made of cheese" and you go "wtf?". If you see that as an attempt to just talk at you instead with you, then I don't know how to change that.

 

[Kestra]

No, this thread was started to understand. When I ask critical question then just because I don't get your reasons to believe in this and that. If you see that as an attempt to just talk at you instead with you, then I don't know how to change that.

You can change it by acknowledging and conversing with all the people who have expressed beliefs in response to your original post. And also by demonstrating that you are actually interested in trying to understand people's reasons to believe in "this and that."

 

[Captain_Nick]

What abstract concept are you talking about? The abstract concept of praying? What do you mean?

You talk about the Christian God and the way people believe or 'interact' with him / it, and that is one manifestation of an abstract idea.

It really is not relevant to talk about God causing earthquakes or whatever as it shows that you do not 'get' the core concepts of that belief system, or of the idea of a belief system.

To gain a clearer understanding of what it's all about, go and study all the religions. Islam, Taoism and Buddhism are good places to start. Then you will begin to see clearly what matters and what doesn't.

 

[JarodRussell]

What abstract concept are you talking about? The abstract concept of praying? What do you mean?

You talk about the Christian God and the way people believe or 'interact' with him / it, and that is one manifestation of an abstract idea.

It really is not relevant to talk about God causing earthquakes or whatever as it shows that you do not 'get' the core concepts of that belief system, or of the idea of a belief system.

To gain a clearer understanding of what it's all about, go and study all the religions. Islam, Taoism and Buddhism are good places to start. Then you will begin to see clearly what matters and what doesn't.

But people DO this. It's not abstract. People actually do this. And it doesn't matter which religion you look at, nor does it have anything to do with the "core concept". What is the "core concept" of a religion anyway, when every single individual has his own individual view on this religion?

"Go and study all the religions" is a great answer, too. You don't want to waste your time, do you? Instead you just say "read a book about it." Why don't you even come in here. Kestra just criticized me for talking AT people and not WITH them. What are you doing?

No, this thread was started to understand. When I ask critical question then just because I don't get your reasons to believe in this and that. If you see that as an attempt to just talk at you instead with you, then I don't know how to change that.

You can change it by acknowledging and conversing with all the people who have expressed beliefs in response to your original post. And also by demonstrating that you are actually interested in trying to understand people's reasons to believe in "this and that."

Heh, wait a second. You interpreted not replying to answers that managed to satisfy my curiousity with not caring? What do I have to do? "Thank you, thank you?" for every post?

 

[Captain_Nick]

What are you doing?

There are so many ways to answer that question.

Wasting time at work.

I also see myself on a pedistal, exhorting you ignorant masses to improve your lots in life and gain some understanding.

It's a nice image but I fancy I'm wasting my time. Very few people can think in the abstract.

 

[Kestra]

Heh, wait a second. You interpreted not replying to answers that managed to satisfy my curiousity with not caring? What do I have to do? "Thank you, thank you?" for every post?

That would be lovely.

 

[Amaris]

Heh, wait a second. You interpreted not replying to answers that managed to satisfy my curiousity with not caring? What do I have to do? "Thank you, thank you?" for every post?

That would be lovely.

Indeed. It's just good behavior to thank someone for supplying you with a satisfying answer, since your preferred responses seem to be so difficult to satisfy, Jarod.

 

[Captain_Nick]

Since we cannot sustain an elevated conversation in the lofty realms of the outer and inner minds, let us descend to the level of sordid worldly manifestations. I will relate to you a story of a miracle.

Due to appalling money management and a bit of bad luck, last week I found myself flat broke, without even fifty cents to spend on food. My payday was a day away. I was at work and feeling the 'pinch' around lunchtime, but I had no options for food. Nobody to borrow money from, and no edible food in the fridge to steal. I had resigned myself to staying hungry until the next day, and even went as far as trying to convince myself that it would be manly and excellent to endure a bit of hunger.

It didn't work, of course, and I was hungry and full of despair when lunchtime rolled around. That was when I fell back to my spiritual beliefs. I thought to myself, 'well, lets just go for a walk and see what happens. The universe will look after me'. So I went out for a walk to nowhere in particular, determined to let the universe guide me.

I went past some shops, I passed a McDonalds and the heavenly scent coming from that place was torture. I turned into a residential street and walked past some wonderful front gardens. The flowers were blooming, the air was laden with wonderful smells, and it was a beautiful warm day. Truly spring has arrived in this city.

I noticed all of these things as I walked which I guess means I had managed to empty my mind to a degree. It was quite satisfying, and very relaxing.

I wound up in an alley way between two residential streets when the miracle occured. Right there, on the ground, was a nice big green granny smith apple. Almost unblemished, whole, clean, and it had been placed there just for me. Hallelujah!

I understood at once that this was the universe looking after me, so I gave appropriate thanks and ate the apple. It was also pretty damn tasty.


That is what religion is all about. I have tried to spell it out as clearly as I can for you.

 

[STR]

almost nobody would believe a guy like Jesus (or stories about him) today, but at the same time, they believe in something that's from an old book).

The assumption here is that everyone joined the early Church because of their certainty in the divinity of Jesus. It had a lot more to do with the fact that Christianity accepted everyone into it. The poor, slaves, women, were are included. This was something rather unique to the teachings of Jesus. Contemporary Rabbinic Judaism was obsessed with spiritual cleanliness, which most people couldn't hope to achieve. Most Roman cults were like Scientology, mere fronts for profiteering conmen.

See, there is a tendency to view 1st century religion the same as the calcified codes of today. It was actually quite fluid back then, you can move in and out of a religion on a weekly basis, or give offerings and prayer to two opposing sects. Hell, the only reason why Rome starting throwing Christians to the Lions was because the church had a "as long as you're Christian, you don't tribute other sects" rule which ran afoul of the state religion of worshiping Caesar and other deified leaders which mandated tribute to the state in addition to whatever you actually believed in.

Digressing, nitpicking details about the origin of the Gospels or comparing Jesus to wet paint misses the point of why it became the world's largest religion in the first place (and strongly influenced the 2nd largest). It was the original belief in the inclusion of all, an idea of Jesus (or if you insist he never existed, some other individual in early Christianity), that built the modern Church moreso than those that built the Vatican, or binded everything together into the New Testament.

Okay, one bit of nitpicking

he didn't write the NT.

Willam Shatner didn't really write any of his books either. Doesn't mean he doesn't get credit for being the source.

Yeah, I went there. I compared the Shat to Jesus.

On a more serious note, the Gospels itself appears to be a rewriting of earlier work (referred to...wait for it...as "Q" or the "Q Source"), which seems to have been lost to antiquity. We really don't have any idea who did write the Gospels, aside from the fact it's unlikely they were written by those they are ascribed to.

I understood at once that this was the universe looking after me, so I gave appropriate thanks and ate the apple. It was also pretty damn tasty.

That is what religion is all about. I have tried to spell it out as clearly as I can for you.

Funny, a reward from God is just about the opposite of what I seek from religion. Nor is trusting the universe to take care of my material needs and wants. The universe exists, I exist (at least up til now), that's all I ever expect from beyond myself. If I die tomorrow, well, it was an interesting trip. Glad to have had it. Religion is also an attempt to answer to the question "Why?" The "why" of the source. Science gives you an excellent "how," but ultimately results in an infinite regression paradox (or a question mark) when you trace it back to the beginning. Logic gives you a great tool to separate the crap from the useful.

I go to church once a year for my girlfriend's family christmas service and I dread it...Obviously...an Athiest

Not an atheist, but I hate church services myself. The music is godawful stuff. How about a little more "Saints Come Marching In" instead of 18th century puritan mixed with medieval monk lamenting the fact he gave up getting laid. Don't get me started on Christian Rock. There's a special place in hell for those people.