quote:

hypocrisy is a necessity of life

We differ about that. You give an example of not telling your wife she isn't looking her best. That isn't hypocrisy. Read again the definition I quoted: "Hypocrisy is the act of persistently pretending to hold beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually hold." Lack of hypocrisy doesn't mean that you're rude to others or always disagree with them--that would be disagreeable! But if you are asked what YOU believe, "persistently pretending" to beliefs that are not your own does constitute hypocrisy.

If I don't believe my wife is looking her best, I don't have to tell her that. If she demands a response, I don't have to compare her to the times that she did look her best. And an occasional white lie isn't hypocritical either.

Hypocrisy also involves denying an important belief. The more important the belief that you actively deny, the more hypocritical you are.

quote:

We could not get along if we were nakedly honest with each other,

Agreed!

quote:

I seem to remember you saying "Shame on you!" when I told you a similar opinion about this in the religion section.

No, that was a different issue I think. Give me a link and I'll look at it again. Plus in this discussion board we can be more open and honest than in everyday life, I hope--that's one reason we're here. I doubt you'd see so much open hostility and insults going on if we were all face-to-face in some room somewhere!

quote:

you tend to attribute humanity's defects to religion.

On the contrary. I think humanity has plenty of defects as well as virtues, with or without religion. Some use religion in ways that demonstrate their hatred for their fellow man; some use it to demonstrate their love and kindness for their fellow man. If religion were really a force for the good, it would make people better. If it were really a force for bad, it would make people worse. I think people are just people, bringing their virtues and defects to whatever they're doing. Religion is irrelevant to that.

I'd be all for religion if it made people more loving and kind, even if I thought it was based on nonsense. I'd never discourage anyone from being more loving and compassionate in general!

Jeff

Compguy, I should have provided a link before. Here is the thread: Hell frozen over thread

We actually were not arguing about this subject exactly, but about whether certain parts of the Bible are misogynistic. You insisted on seeing parts of the text about women as isolated comprehensive units to be dismissed, and I was trying to get you to admit that there was a lot more involved in interpreting them right from the time they were written. For instance you said "Sean, I've loathed God as presented in the Bible all my life. Wiping out Sodom and Gomorrah? Drowning almost everyone in the Great Flood? Killing almost all the children in Egypt because of a political problem with the Pharoah? And on and on. Hardly a loving God."

In the course of conversation I said men were naturally misogynistic, which you denied. Also you have elsewhere said that morality is independent of religion. This may be true or not, however it shows you coming from the point of view that religion is unnecessary; but you have not dealt with where religion comes from. If it comes from us, how are we going to just toss it? Shouldn't we admit that it is here to stay and perfect it?

Presently we are on a tangent from the main topic, however we are still mostly going in the same direction. We're talking about how many religious people are ignorant of their own faith, do not believe it, yet confess it. I say life is short; and that is the main cause of ignorance. There are different ways of measuring your parents religion, but mostly people will choose to stay in the parent's religion (and their hypocrisies) based upon their relationship with their parents and how they view their parents. The outcome is that religion is a natural extension of humanity, as is hypocrisy. Depending on the person, the words have more or less relevance to the decision to adopt or not. I respect your intelligence very much, Jeff, however you might also be guilty in this respect. You insist upon decrying Biblical passages while refusing to study their context -- what they are really about. You are ignorant of them, but you have nevertheless made a decision against them. How is this different from someone who adopts them without understanding them?

OK--the context was:

quote:

As a man, I resent being told that's "naturally" the way men behave--and I deny that it's true. Shame on you.

I felt at the time what you said was like calling me a racist. I disagree fervently with your comment--but hypocrisy didn't have anything to do with my reaction or your comment, I think. On the contrary--you were pretty forthright in what you said! I just disagree.

quote:

You insist upon decrying Biblical passages while refusing to study their context -- what they are really about. You are ignorant of them, but you have nevertheless made a decision against them. How is this different from someone who adopts them without understanding them?

You presuppose my ignorance. I understand the many efforts that have been made by reasonable people to interpret the Bible in a kindlier light, to say the Biblical stories are metaphors and there are deeper meanings to them. Again, I disagree. The ideas in the Bible, for the most part, are pretty much as they seem. They're meant to scare people into doing what the authors want them to do. Go against the principles expressed, and you will be punished. Maybe you'll have to wait for your death for the punishment, or maybe the Lord will be so pissed that he'll destroy you or your children or the entire civilized world on the spot. Don't get him angry. (You can find metaphors and add your interpretations, of course. We read all sorts of things into what we read. But the original purpose of these fear-mongering stories was to instill fear, not to give a metaphor for discussion.)

For me, that's the thrust of large sections of the Bible. And then there are sections of the Bible that are completely the opposite--God is loving and kind, God is forgiveness, you are never so evil as to be assured of Hell since God might always bestow his divine Grace on you.

I know I'm speaking in broad strokes here, but I don't know any other way to talk about this briefly. Anyway, when people talk of "The Bible" they're talking about many different things with many different aspects. There is no single point of view you can ascribe to the Bible--it's a mishmash of thousands of different ideas from dozens of different authors. The basic context for me is that it was written by relatively primitive people with short lives in terms that their uneducated peers would be influenced by, and there is development to higher ideas as we get to the more modern texts.

I'm digressing here. Getting back to your point--I agree that the ideas behind religion are indeed a natural extension of humanity. There seem to be biological/genetic roots in the need to believe. But if people simply choose a religion because it's their parents', they are not religious. They're just going along. They're not thinking about the issues or what they profess to believe--and that is part of my point here. They're not truly faithful--they're following a tradition, often a family tradition, to get along with others in their families and communities. Think of cults like the worst possible fundamentalist suicide-bomber type Muslim. You certainly can't be in favor of people adopting such a faith blindly or avoiding the evils that are inherent in some of these farout cults, are you?

The way we overcome the pulls of family and community is the same way we overcome other superstitions and habits--by analysis, by thinking, by reading widely, and by learning. I think humans are not eternally bound by their parents' beliefs or by the cultures they grew up in. I think we can grow out of that propaganda and learn to think for ourselves.

I'm an optimist about humans and their abilities, and I think we can overcome the urge to hypocrisy.

And, of course, I may very well be mistaken about that. History would tell me so, but I keep hoping.

Jeff

I think I can understand why you thought I was calling you a racist, and your disagreement has high value to me. As for presupposing your ignorance, I did that in the post and it was unfair. I absolutely cannot stand to be in most churches where I see all to clearly through the charades of ministries, which being paid for their services, are necessarily preoccupied with getting paid. (There are even scriptures about this for those who are interested.)

quote:

There is no single point of view you can ascribe to the Bible--it's a mishmash of thousands of different ideas from dozens of different authors. The basic context for me is that it was written by relatively primitive people with short lives in terms that their uneducated peers would be influenced by, and there is development to higher ideas as we get to the more modern texts.

Yes, there is development; but I've never met anyone who didn't appreciate metaphors or who didn't like to indulge in them. It doesn't make sense to say the Israelites were too primitive to appreciate them. Nobody is that primitive. We can talk about it sometime.

quote:

They're not truly faithful--they're following a tradition, often a family tradition, to get along with others in their families and communities.

This is where it gets personal isn't it? My family does not follow a tradition but a commandment to believe. My father is old, recently widowed, and generally just hanging on to his mind. The temptation for me to be a hypocrit is only overshadowed by how much I loathe the church machine that preys on those I love. If I could stand to be I'd be in service right now, Sunday night, clapping and swaying. But for their sakes and mine, I compromise. I do not condemn, and I do not participate much at all. I think perhaps that people in traditions who do not believe yet participate, similar to me, are biding their time waiting and hoping their families are ready to come out of the fantasy. Is that hypocritical? Emotionally it is 100% consistent with love and honor.

quote:

Think of cults like the worst possible fundamentalist suicide-bomber type Muslim. You certainly can't be in favor of people adopting such a faith blindly or avoiding the evils that are inherent in some of these farout cults, are you?

Were it that simple. A fundamentalist is merely a liberal that has found a better way. America's Christian fundamentalists were once the best hope to escape the tyranny of the Catholic regime. We were liberal and progressive seeking a better way and more perfect union. Starting in 19th century, Zionism was actually our idea, based on our interpretations of our Bibles. We together with our British brothers pulled the strings, created an environment open to the idea of an entire country devoted to our fundamentalist fantasies, and on into the 21st century tempted bunches of secular Jews into going. The fundamentalist suicide bombers are an opposing reaction that was bound to result. You might even say it is our fault. (Though the bombs I would not have anticipated. Man that is just way over the top.) Sometime in the future these bombing crazies will again take the role of humble progressives. Their children will be ashamed of their past, and someone else will be crazy fundamentalists for a while. People just seem to take turns at it.

quote:

The way we overcome the pulls of family and community is the same way we overcome other superstitions and habits--by analysis, by thinking, by reading widely, and by learning. I think humans are not eternally bound by their parents' beliefs or by the cultures they grew up in. I think we can grow out of that propaganda and learn to think for ourselves.

I like that!

Many interesting thoughts there that I can agree with, and some that make me think a bit. That's the best part of boards like this when they work, by the way, for me anyway--the (sadly rare) opportunity to have a real conversation about serious matters.

One of my dogs made friends with a skunk last night, but the skunk wasn't in a friendly mood, so I've got to take him for a bath (fortunately I don't have to do that myself...phew!) so I'll be brief right now.

I'll just comment on this part of your post:

quote:

I do not condemn, and I do not participate much at all. I think perhaps that people in traditions who do not believe yet participate, similar to me, are biding their time waiting and hoping their families are ready to come out of the fantasy. Is that hypocritical? Emotionally it is 100% consistent with love and honor.

You're assuming there's a dichotomy between hypocrisy and love/honor. There isn't. Hypocrisy not only CAN come out of love, but it often does. Depending on the circumstances, hypocrisy doesn't have to be bad or evil, or at any rate the basic badness of it is outweighed by the love and compassion that produced it.

I'm an atheist, but if I'm sitting at the bedside of a dying relative who asks me to pray for her, I'm not going to start arguing that prayer is pointless and never works. I'm not going to tell her dead is dead and when she dies she will not be going to a better place. I will go along and even tell her that I am praying for her. I think I'm being compassionate and loving by doing that, but I have no doubt that I'm also being hypocritical. You can use love and compassion as a reason for hypocrisy, but the hypocrisy remains...

Jeff