# Hypocrites



## openairboy (Apr 4, 2005)

There are an hundred and one threads started about the Pope and there are more opinions than threads. Since it is clearly the discussion of the day, you can't turn on the TV, radio, or pick up a newspaper without someone discussing it, I am utterly amazed at the world's hypocrisy and their inability to think clearly!

An AP Poll, yup, an AP poll, was taken and apparently people have opinions on what the church should do. Now, obviously people have a right to an opinion, but their hypocrisy needs to be pointed out when they share that opinion. 

If you have spent any time interacting with people in our culture, then you quickly realize that they are quick to say, "Judge not lest ye be judge..." Yet, they are all willing to sit in judgment of the Church and tell us what to do. "You should ordain woman! You should let priests marry! You should do this! You should do that!" I'm amazed at the ethical norms our culture suddenly turns to when they think the Church is in the wrong. They suddenly sit in judgment of us. YOU HYPOCRITES! 

If we way our opinion in on abortion, war, taxes, death penalty or any other issue under the sun they are quick to remind us that there is a separation of "church and state". Yet, how is the secularist so quick to offer up his opinion on issues of the Church? YOU HYPOCRITES!


openairboy



[Edited on 4-5-2005 by openairboy]

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## Ken S. (Apr 10, 2005)

Are you not another hypocrites when you say these?
What do those hypocrites' position on "abortion, wars, texes, death penalty or any other issue under the sun" to do with their judgements on JPII? Does their hypocrisy thus justify the heretic works the RCC has been doing for centuries and for JPII's 27 years of reign?

While accusing the hypocrites who, in your view, shut their mouth up when it comes to these social and political issues, do you make the same accusation against RCC for their further distortion of the gospel and closer relations with all those cults after Vatican II and in recent years? Have you not also turned your face away from the darkness of the RCC?

Be fair, man! If you want your accusations be valid and worth respecting, DO shout at the hypocrites AND the RCC at the same time. Otherwise your accusations to me is just another primary trick performed by both the devil and the hypocritic liberals. Be fair!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 10, 2005)

The problem is, they confuse the term _Chrisitian_ with perfection. They acknowledge Gods holiness and perfection and then erroneously equate that same perfection and holiness to the Christian. When we sin, they call us hypocrite.


----------



## Robin (Apr 10, 2005)

Guys,

The World is busy being worldly. But Paul means something particular by using that word "worldly."

That term _worldly_ does not mean smoking, dancing, drinking, R rated movies, Etc. Rather, it means a mindset opposite to the Gospel: "_good people go to heaven; bad people go to hell_."

When Paul says to _renew your mind_...and... _don't be of the_ _world_, he means that we are not to *think* like the world! God saves wicked people - the righteous don't need God. But the spectacle we've been seeing this past week, especially, is the unanimous agreement (even by our Protestant brethren) that good people go to heaven.

The Pope depended upon his own self-sufficiency and righteousness to justify him before a Holy God. Now --- he knows.

My brothers, it is our task to inform those in our sphere of influence that "God saves the wicked --- not the righteous!"

Imagine what kind of "trouble" that message will get us into?!



Robin


----------



## openairboy (Apr 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ken S._
> Are you not another hypocrites when you say these?
> What do those hypocrites' position on "abortion, wars, texes, death penalty or any other issue under the sun" to do with their judgements on JPII? Does their hypocrisy thus justify the heretic works the RCC has been doing for centuries and for JPII's 27 years of reign?



First, their hypocrisy is evident in that they have no standard to pass judgment, yet they judge. Second, they claim to make a separation and don't desire us to participate in the public sphere, yet they want to tell us what to do. You are so jaundiced in your perspective that you completely, completely, completely read things that I never intended. Second, no, I am not a hypocrite. When I use the term hypocrisy I am using it in the purist sense. I'm not talking about a mere inconsistency, but an "actor", a "player". The hypocrite is the WOLF in SHEEPS CLOTHING. The one pretending to be something he is not. It's not a sheep that strays. So, no, I'm not a hypocrite. Also, I have a standard by which to judge. Nice try though, Kenny.



> While accusing the hypocrites who, in your view, shut their mouth up when it comes to these social and political issues, do you make the same accusation against RCC for their further distortion of the gospel and closer relations with all those cults after Vatican II and in recent years? Have you not also turned your face away from the darkness of the RCC?



Kenny, read what I actually said or has the cataract taken over.



> Be fair, man! If you want your accusations be valid and worth respecting, DO shout at the hypocrites AND the RCC at the same time. Otherwise your accusations to me is just another primary trick performed by both the devil and the hypocritic liberals. Be fair!



Kenny, learn to read and not eisegete. Or, as you say, "Be fair, man!" Which in this context, Kenny, means reading what I actually said and not what you think I should say or that you personally desire to say. Kenny, you are the problem with these discussion boards. One, you clearly have a temper. Two, you don't actually read what people are saying. Three, you seem unstable. Before you post, read what the person said and ask, "What are they trying to say?" Then don't read in what you think they should say or what you would say. Try to understand the author's intent. This will save everyone a lot of time and your blood pressure from rising and falling at unprecedented rates.

openairboy

[Edited on 4-11-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## openairboy (Apr 11, 2005)

*They Continue*

This time it is the hypocrites out at the UN. They are pretty funny.


----------



## Ken S. (Apr 11, 2005)

"you(Ken) are the problem with these discussion boards"?

That's really a shocking accusation. Interesting.
Well, maybe you're right. 

Here's a suggestion: It'll be good for you to report my faults and troubles I've caused to the board to the webmaster or administrators. I'm sure they've realized the existance of such problem of the board as Ken, and they would decide wheather to delete my account or sparing me my "life" for one time.

Be careful of your words when our conversation is between a Chinese and an American. 

I could leave the board anyway if you guys prefer me do so. I dont' mind. It's not the first time I get kicked out of English forum. Afterall it is you Westerners' place. Not mine.


----------



## openairboy (Apr 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ken S._
> *Be careful of your words when our conversation is between a Chinese and an American...It's not the first time I get kicked out of English forum.*



Who should be careful?

openairboy


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 11, 2005)

Keith, keep in mind that Ken may have misunderstood parts of your initial post, and that the proper reaction to uphold the edifying spirit for which this board was created is to work to clear up any possible misunderstandings before jumping to conclusions or accusing him of having a temper and of being the cause of problems on the board, which is completely unwarranted. Work to understand and benefit him in all conversation, rather than talking past him in a combative tone. He simply disagreed with what he at least perceived you to be saying in your initial post, and said absolutely nothing about you on a personal level, so recognize his concern for what it is, especially since it may have been a misunderstanding of what you meant by your initial post. That being said, I fully agree with what you said to begin this thread, and hope that it can proceed with healthy discussion of, and mutual understanding of, that good point.

Ken, please don't feel that you are any less welcome on this board because you are not a Westerner or because English is not your first language. Neither of those things has any bearing on our unity and like-mindedness in Christ and the Reformed faith, and I don't believe it was Keith's intention to fault you for that particular reason at all.

That being said, I do think you may have misunderstood Keith's first post, which was not claiming to be neutral with regard to all the cultural and religious issues of our day - he was indeed admitting to intentionally judging the secular culture and its ways, which we believe we have biblical warrant to do. But the reason the culture is hypocritical is not because it judges the Church, but because it does so while at the same time saying that we should not judge and that our theological views should not be allowed to affect political decisions. In other words, we judge them and fully admit that we are doing so, but they try to seem neutral in it all by saying that people should not judge each other whenever that seems convenient for them, while judging us without admitting it whenever that seems convenient for them.

In Christ's love,


----------



## openairboy (Apr 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Keith, keep in mind that Ken may have misunderstood parts of your initial post, and that the proper reaction to uphold the edifying spirit for which this board was created is to work to clear up any possible misunderstandings before jumping to conclusions or accusing him of having a temper and of being the cause of problems on the board, which is completely unwarranted. Work to understand and benefit him in all conversation, rather than talking past him in a combative tone. He simply disagreed with what he at least perceived you to be saying in your initial post, and said absolutely nothing about you on a personal level, so recognize his concern for what it is, especially since it may have been a misunderstanding of what you meant by your initial post. That being said, I fully agree with what you said to begin this thread, and hope that it can proceed with healthy discussion of, and mutual understanding of, that good point.



Thanks for pointing this out to me, and I apologize to Ken and the board. I did take his "primary trick" comment and question of "are you not a hypocrite" in a, where the heck is that coming from? sort of way, and I shot back. I'm in a big city, so I kind of follow the policy of the police around here: Shoot first, ask questions last, which is the wrong policy in both police work and discussion boards, especially a christian board.

openairboy

[Edited on 4-11-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 11, 2005)

The more I think about your initial point, I wonder how many such unbelievers would respond to it, though it would most likely be a dodge of some kind, as are most secular responses to anything that exposes their supposed neutrality as non-existant.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 11, 2005)

Thanks Keith.

Ken, never fear, you are most welcome here.

Everyone remember that you can't read tone of voice or facial expressions on the board.

Be gracious, and easy to forgive.


----------



## Robin (Apr 12, 2005)

Way to go, Keith, brother....

Yes, Ken...you are most welcome....it's great to hear about your adventures in the East! Be patient with our Westernesse impatience 

Robin


----------



## openairboy (Apr 12, 2005)

*More - Hoppe & the Thought Police*

Hoppe and the Thought Police

I realize I bring up this theme a lot, but I believe it necessary. It is one of those issues that just rubs me the wrong way. The hypocrisy of unbelievers, especially the academics, is just too profound and obvious, yet often (it's becoming much more common) unquestioned. This is seen up at Harvard, the President came under fire for making some comments about woman, and at a host of other universities over the past 7-8 yrs. (since I've been paying attention). Hoppe was teaching economics and addressing time preferences, and how the fact that homosexuals do not have children effects their decision making, making them more present oriented. This comment brought him under fire. 

Here, for me, is the problem: evolutionary and postmodern thought does not allow for egalitarianism. There is no way this can occur, because it would deny natural selection and rebells against idividual subjectivity. Yet, these academics seek to interpret male & female, black & white, slave & free in egalitarian terms, denying both natural selection and individual subjectivity on this issue. This is the orthodoxy of the day. When someone steps out of the bounds of this orthodoxy and suggest that nature causes differences between men & women, black & white, slave & free, then it is suggested that they are racist, misogynist, or any other "ist" out there. Or suddenly the postmodern expects us to interpret the "text" (nature in this instance) properly, which denies their fundamental hermeneutic. This destroys their own principles (metaphysic, epistemology, and ethic [they often trumpet freedom to their own demise, namely promoting genetic and environmental determinism, but what happens when the Calvinist speaks up?]).

So, what is the Christian position? In egalitarian terms: all people equally bear the image of God. Whites, blacks, males, females, slave & free all equally possess God's image, have "equal access" to Him, and the "right" to obey Him. This, however, does not negate the fact that people, especially in terms of male & female, function differently. Christians are often seen as misogynists, because the Scriptures teach that the wife is to submit to her husband, that she is the weaker vessel, etc., but this isn't predicated on hatred, but rather recognizing the "fucntion" of male & female. In the Godhead there is not bickering and arguing, because the Son was crucified and not the Holy Spirit. There aren't factions, because they function "differently". At the end of the day, only the Christian position can account for equality, yet account for the differences that we see as well.


[Edited on 4-12-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## Ken S. (Apr 17, 2005)

Recently I'm busy, so don't have the time to finishe all the threads above this.

I can see that I may really have misunderstood Keith's thread, but I'm not sure. You see, I don't want you all seeing me kept silent for so many days, but still I don't have time to read throuhg the threads detaily. So.....I would say: Keith, I appologise for being rude. I'll make a more clear thought reply to you later when I got much time. Now I'm very busy.

Thanks to all.
Thank you for all your passions and being very considerate.
Good to have the western "Puritans" with me while it feels quite lonely and a bit scary in HK.

(sorry that it may take you some efforts to figure out what I'm saying in "English")

[Edited on 17-4-2005 by Ken S.]


----------



## turmeric (Apr 17, 2005)

Your English is MUCH better than my Chinese! Ken, check out www.monergism.com and talk to John Hendryx. He goes to my church. He speaks Mandarin I believe, you might find it pleasant to speak to someone with a broader education than some of us have.


----------

