Monday, July 13, 2009

THE HYPOCHRIST

“Yea, though I walk through the valley of strange vagina, I shall fear no evil
For my Rod and my Staff are comforted…”

Thus Mark Sanford prayed in earnest for guidance from the Lord, and the Lord answeredeth him with a painful priapic episode that could only have been divinely inspired, even if it might have been Viagra induced. It was true love, as true as the love of Capulet for Montague, if that involved hot latin titties in the moonlight, too.

And thus Mark Sanford enteredeth into the realm of the Hypochrist. For to be unfaithful is perhaps a sin, but one I wouldn’t normally care about that much in an elected official, it being their private business…
…unless of course the person involved was actively promoting his own flawless Christian morality all his life, used it to get elected, and even had gone so far as to speak out against the very idea of homosexual marriage, as a threat to traditional marriages…
Traditional heterosexual marriages like that of say, Mark Sanford.

He publically flayed his wife, virtually assassinated her in front of the entire world (nice job, that) and probably destroyed his children in the process as well. But at least he’s not a homo. After all, they’re yucky and sinful in the sight of God. Whereas philandering self-righteous bloviating hypocrites who cheat on their opposite-sex traditional wife are obviously okay with the Lord, and no harm to the family unit either, unless you consider publically nuking your entire family unit harmful to it.

Ted Haggard is a similar sad story of a man rising to power by speaking out against the very things that he practiced in his private life. So of course is Larry Craig. It’s a type, and unfortunately a fairly common one.

There is a special brand of hypocrite about in the world nowadays. Oh, they’ve been around for millennia, but their star has been on the ascendant lately. Their voices have been more strident. More frantic. The voices to which I refer are those of the Hypochrists, our modern-day Pharisees.

Pontificating on their ‘superior’ morality which they supposedly derive from God rather than common sense, they fail and fail and fail again to actually demonstrate any of it, thus proving it illusory. They are always the ones attacking the morality of others while they fail miserably to be even remotely moral themselves. They call themselves Christians while they consistently act in a diametrically opposed manner to anything that Jesus would have done or even would have remotely approved of. And they inform people of other faiths or of none at all how inferior and wrong they are, while they demonstrate not only inferiority and wrongness themselves, but even bring it to the point of a psychosis.

And they can’t even understand why we non-Christians would be so angry at their hypocrisy, their condemnation of others for that which they do themselves. They don’t see it at all. They can’t see the sheer humor in the Larry Craig saga, or the sad ridiculousness of Mark Sanford. This isn’t just stupidity; it’s *phenomenal* stupidity! Comedians can’t even improve on it for the sheer humor factor, it’s that stupid.

These are people who have made a deal with the devil of ignorance. They’ve chosen to believe rather than to think. And they are taught that those who choose otherwise are to be reviled. Their entire belief system is all about making them feel good about being ignorant and attacking knowledge whenever possible. They bond with each other in the foxholes of the war against logic and reason. (No atheists in those foxholes, that’s one thing they’re right about)

Their belief system serves not to help them grow spiritually as one might think, but instead to inflate their egos to the point where they feel absolutely certain of their superiority over others, any others, all others not so conditioned, all others that believe or think differently. And thus it retards whatever spiritual growth might have been possible, for in order to grow spiritually you can’t be an egotist. You can’t just ‘know’ that you’re right all the time, or what room for growth can there be?

They are like trained monkeys, most of them. Triggered by keywords that their masters have programmed into them. No thought, no analysis is required of them; merely their condemnation of whatever they’re trained to condemn, and of course their voting for whomever they’re trained to vote for. And they obediently oblige, since to them hate is love and right is wrong, black is white and God is Satan.

(Or Santa. One of the two. I get them mixed up. But whoever they’re worshipping, it’s no God of goodness and Light, that’s for sure.)

They share the common bond of being hateful, small, and petty. Their senses of humor reflect this, usually involving slurring people or ideas in a manner reminiscent of mean-spirited spoiled semi-literate children. Lately we hear them ranting against little Malia Obama, for wearing a peace-symbol shirt. Calling her and her family thugs and saying that her mother likes to make monkey noises to her and such. Unbelievable.

It’s very hard not to hate them.

Not hating them has occupied a lot of my time lately.

Because they’re practically asking to be hated.

And yet, if I hate them, it lessens me and not them. It doesn’t faze them at all. It pollutes me and they learn nothing. In fact, they would only interpret my hatred as proof of their rectitude, of their righteousness, of their 'superiority' to me and others like me.

They love to hate. It’s their hobby, their comfort, their favorite pastime. The more they hate and demonize others, the better they feel about their own sorry sad shallow selves in comparison.

I don’t want to fall into the trap of hating them. It’s too easy. And yet perhaps I already have.

How can one not hate such ignorance, ignorance raised to the level of a mental disease? An ignorance founded in a long tradition of ignorance, made unassailable by sheer repetition in our society… How not to despise the utterly despicable? How not to hate people who have made braying hateful asses out of themselves for God, and believe that they themselves are without flaw or sin?

And yet, by far my biggest motivation for *not* hating them, for trying to somehow love them too, in whatever way is possible, is that by hating them I will become more like them. This is an intolerable option to me.

Any suggestions?

191 comments:

  1. Everywhere you're inclined to feel the hate, switch to pity instead. You may start to feel a bit sanctimonious, but what's a little sanctimony, compared to blow jobs in airport bathrooms?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said, Kerri. A good suggestion.

    Kerri, are you the Kerri that I know, or the Kerri that I don't know?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why not publish your secrets of how you live the perfect life, causing no one else in the world to be loathing of anything you say or do and sell it to the hypochrists?
    Under the name of The Chronicles of St. Brian. That'd lasso them in .
    That way, they could learn to live in such a way that pleases you and you get rich in the process.

    Those without imperfection please throw the first stone.

    ReplyDelete
  4. An interesting article.
    I gather that you're an atheist or atleast an agnostic.

    Why do you focus on the actions of hypochrists, as you call them.?

    Seems like a waste of time.

    However, I will have a look at your big brain blog and see what's up over there. I'm an agnostic and would be interested in what you have to say there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Under the name of The Chronicles of St. Brian. That'd lasso them in .
    -George
    ----------------------
    Because I am not interested in taking advantage of the ignorant.

    Although apparently I 'lassoed' you in, didn't I? What a rube you turned out to be, eh?


    Those without imperfection please throw the first stone.
    -George
    ----------------------
    How about those with the most imperfections, stop throwing most of the stones whilst trying to call them blessings.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why do you focus on the actions of hypochrists, as you call them.?
    -----------
    Because they are the local flavor of pernicious ignorance. Of sanctimonious mind poison. I can trace their history in my mind's eye all the way back to Constantine. They are the ever-present tools of the ruling state, whichever one knows the code words.

    If I were Iranian (and had a conscience) I'd be pissed about the Islamic extremists/terrorists for giving the religion a bad name, but since I'm American (and have a conscience) I'm pissed at the Christian extremists for giving Christianity a bad name. A bad flavor even.

    Perhaps I'm not being clear enough for you? (joke)

    They affect me and mine, by getting into politics, by mixing church and state. Once they started that shit, all bets are off, sorry dude.

    Ironically, Jesus is more than just allright by me. I highly approve of most of the examples that He set in the gospels which modern Hypochrists ignore blissfully while believing that they do not.

    They believe themselves to be godly, which inflates their egos. Which causes them to be anything else but godly. Quite the opposite in fact.

    And besides, it's my blog, so I'm the local deity. Or at least the local Saint.

    Deal with it, my friend. Pax Atheisticus Vobiscum.

    ReplyDelete
  7. However, I will have a look at your big brain blog and see what's up over there. I'm an agnostic and would be interested in what you have to say there.
    -Jerry
    -----------------
    Thank you.

    I feel that I must stress that I am expressing my sense of humor here, mostly. I am not the egomaniac that I play on the web.

    ---

    And to my new detractor George, I do not claim to be perfect in any way. I routinely feel stupid, in fact. Do you? Do you ever feel stupid? If you do not, then you probably are, since it means that you don't wonder about yourself enough...

    Anyhow, this is fun. Care to tango?

    ReplyDelete
  8. George said...
    Why not publish your secrets of how you live the perfect life, causing no one else in the world to be loathing of anything you say or do and sell it to the hypochrists?
    Under the name of The Chronicles of St. Brian. That'd lasso them in .
    ------------
    Ooh, I like this one. It's too easy, really. But okay...

    Ahem:

    "Why not publish your secrets of how you live the perfect life, causing no one else in the world to be loathing of anything you say or do and sell it to the ignorant Christian masses?
    Under the name of The Bible. That'd lasso them in."
    -----------

    Checkmate. And so soon. Sorry. I don't mean to deflate you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here's one for your synchronicity files.

    Earlier today, I was over at Asylum Seeker's blog. He posted about hypocracy.

    I told him my favorite word in that catagory was your "hypochrist"

    Flash forward to now - You've got a post dedicated to the word. Well, to the people who make the word mean something.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Were you channeling Observant when you composed this?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Were you channeling Observant when you composed this?
    --------
    Funny you should say that. He was in the back of my head, yes. But also many others... The famous ones of course; Sanford, Craig, Haggard, the rest...
    How about Fred Phelps? Now THERE'S a hypochrist!

    ReplyDelete
  12. To clarify, I do not claim authorship of the word "hypochrist."

    It is in the Urban Dictionary.

    However I 'made it up' on my own about two or three years back, and looking at the U.D. entry it seems that it is only about that old.

    So let's assume that while I didn't invent it first, I was among the first to use it.

    Good enough for me. There aren't any royalties anyhow.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What do you think about this take on hypocrisy:

    The hypocrite publicly endorses virtue, but practices vice. However, at least his position recognizes both the existence of and the superior nature of the good -- a good he does in fact endorse. And, it's better to endorse a virtue you don't practice than it is to endorse a vice you do practice. Hence, the hypocrite is preferable to someone who both endorses and acts in a reprehensible manner. So, while the hypocrite deserves our contempt, he doesn't deserve it as much as the man who both practices and endorses vice. And so, finally, the modern day 'cult of integrity' has got it all wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  14. My take on the whole thing is related to the lack of personal responsibility inherent in the Christian belief system:

    First comes, "You are a worthless sinner, and cannot help yourself"

    Then: "Jesus died to take away your sins, if you confess that you believe in Him."

    Followed by: "But you are still human, weak and prone to recidivism (back-sliding into old habits like adultery and other sins)."

    And finally, "But while you are not perfect, you ARE forgiven."

    This line of reasoning tells people first that they can't possibly control themselves, and that even they're forgiven for their sins free of consequences but for the asking, if they claim "born-again" status.

    Real slippery stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I can imagine all the recently famous recidivists (Sanford, Craig, Haggard, Bakker, Swaggart, etc.) using this line of reasoning to rationalize their lack of morality.

    (word verification = "sploo"

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yeah, wow, rather coincidental like mac said. My suggestion is to not hate a hypocrite. Never do that. Laugh at them. Because either it was a trivial offense of an otherwise good person who doesn't deserve such contempt, or it was the reflection of a person who simply views themselves as too great to abide by their rules, and thus deserves only raucous laughter for the rest of their days. The latter are afflicted with great egotism, something that you alluded to I believe, and the best way to relieve them of a delusion about their own superiority is to never let them live down the event that showed so starkly that they don't take their own words seriously. Hatred due to such a thing would only feed into that egotism and weigh you down as well. They just don't deserve it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "They affect me and mine, by getting into politics, by mixing church and state. Once they started that shit, all bets are off, sorry dude."

    Brian:
    If religionists were satisfied to limit their preaching and proselytizing to listeners who cared to hear their message, rather than forcing themselves and their views upon a reluctant public, I would not only agree that one shouldn't either get angry at them or "hate" them (a very strong emotion, in my opinion), but would point out that paying any attention to them at all would diminish the "hater". Were it not that they need to force everyone else to agree with their beliefs as the only means of affirmation they can get that they have it "right", everyone else could simply ignore them or, alternatively, laugh at them. As I have posted before, I never feel angry or "put upon" by a sincere effort to bring me (a Jewish agnostic!!) the good news of Christ's message. As long as this is done under circumstances wherein I can choose not to pay any attention to them, I support everyone's right to believe as they wish. As an American, I must also support people's rights to political actions that are based upon their personal beliefs. After all, in a democracy like ours, this is crucial to its success. But.... any attempt to subvert separation of Church and State to impose their religious viewpoints on the rest of us by law MUST cause us all to oppose them.
    I suppose that the old aphorism that goes "The fastest way to infuriate someone is to fail to recognize their presence, let alone their arguments." Love and/or acceptance are not the opposite of hatred. Indifference is the opposite of all strong emotions. I would have no personal objection to any believer, as long as they are willing to accept my indifference.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What do you think about this take on hypocrisy:
    -Eric
    -----------------
    I think it is bullshit. My BS meter went off. Loudly.

    Was that your point?

    ReplyDelete
  19. And, it's better to endorse a virtue you don't practice than it is to endorse a vice you do practice.
    ----------------
    No it isn't. The first is LYING.

    Not that you'd know the difference, sir. As is apparent from your endorsement of the dishonest option, instinctively.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Eric, I actually have trouble believing that you just tried to 'apologize' for hypocrisy.

    Set yourself some standards man. There should be a line over which even you will not cross.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Love and/or acceptance are not the opposite of hatred. Indifference is the opposite of all strong emotions.
    -Harvey
    ---------------
    So if I take what you (and Kerri) say to heart, the appropriate response to the hypochrist is or should be indifference or pity?

    Or are you saying that in the case where they become involved in politics, that it's appropriate to 'hate' them, at least in the sense of actively fighting against their influence?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Brian, I wasn't defending hypocrisy. Did I not say that the hypocrite deserves our contempt? I came across the argument I sketched on Bill Valicella's excellent blog, 'Maverick Philosopher.' (*Highly* recommended. It's always mentioned whenever 'the best philosophy blogs on the web' are discussed.)

    You see, I had always believed, as you apparently do, that a hypocrite is manifestly worse than someone who is rotten but who preaches what he practices. In short, I thought that the integrity of the rotten man counted for him, and that the lies of the hypocrite counted against him. Valicella has changed my mind about this, however. Here's the important part: the hypocrite lies about his beliefs and allegiances, but the beliefs he purports to hold are true and moral. The openly vice-ridden man tells the truth about what he believes, but what he believes is wrong and immoral. And, since we value truth and morality over falsehood and immorality, it's better to openly swear allegiance to truths you despise, than to be consistent and promote your vices.

    This argument doesn't in any sense let the hypocrite off the hook, but it does present some keen insights into modern culture. That we would prefer a person who lives an immoral life and who preaches immorality to a person who may preach the right things, but who doesn't abide by them when others aren't looking, seems to me to be quite a significant fact about our culture. In short, it says that we prefer 'integrity' to 'truth' (not in the sense of telling the truth, but in the sense of what is in fact true or moral).

    Does that accurately reflect your preferences? Mine neither.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Here are four categories Valicella presents, in descending moral order:

    "*Saints* espouse high and choice-worthy ideals and never fail to live in accordance with them. *Strivers* espouse high and choice-worthy ideals, make an honest effort to live up to them, but are subject to lapses. *Hypocrites* espouse high and choice-worthy ideals, but make little or no attempt to live up to them. *Scamps*, being bereft of moral sense, do not even recognize high and choice-worthy ideals, let alone make an effort to live up to them."

    And here's a little of his argument:

    "...there is something worse that hypocrisy, namely, having no choice-worthy ideals. One who pays ‘lip service’ to ideals is at least recognizing their legitimacy, their oughtness-to-be-realized. Such a person is morally superior to the one who avoids the accusation of hypocrisy by having no ideals...To me it seems clear that the hypocrite, though perhaps not much better than the scamp, is yet morally superior to him. The reason is that the hypocrite at least pays lip-service to high standards of behavior. Lip-service is better than no service. Consider self-control. It is better to preach self-control without practicing it than neither to practice nor preach it."

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sorry, I've misspelled his name: it's 'Vallicella.'

    ReplyDelete
  25. the hypocrite lies about his beliefs and allegiances, but the beliefs he purports to hold are true and moral. The openly vice-ridden man tells the truth about what he believes, but what he believes is wrong and immoral.
    --------------
    Hypocrite=
    Lies about his beliefs, so tells people that his beliefs are true and moral when they are not. So what he *really* believes is immoral. Or perhaps he believes himself to really be moral whilst he is in reality as immoral as the openly vice-ridden man. Of course, he, being in addition a liar about it all, can seduce more people into evil than the openly honest vice-ridden man possibly can.

    Openly Vice-ridden man: What he believes is immoral, and he says it like it is.

    So both are immoral, but one lies in addition to that and pretends that he is moral.

    I dismiss this as stupid. You're better than this, Eric.

    ReplyDelete
  26. One who pays ‘lip service’ to ideals is at least recognizing their legitimacy, their oughtness-to-be-realized.
    ---------------
    Yes, in the sense that he realizes their attractiveness as a cover story.

    Oughtness-To-Be-Realized? He realizes that? No he doesn't, or he'd 'realize' some of them himself rather than using them as a blind. If he realized it, he'd act in accordance. That is what the word "real-ize" means. To make it real in one's life.

    He recognizes the ideas' 'Likeliness to Fool the Gullible Into Thinking That He's Not Evil because he Realizes the Ideas 'Oughtness-To-Be-Realized.'

    The difference between a hypocrite and the openly vice-ridden man, the salient difference, is that while both are vice-ridden, one is open about it and the other lies about it by pretending to have the attributes of honesty and morality. That's a snake, and not a man.

    You are prefering the lie to the truth, quite openly here. How does your morality permit that? Seriously curious here.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Brian, yes, the hypocrite lies, but what's worse: to lie about your beliefs concerning the good but to endorse the good, or to live a life of vice and to promote vice?

    The hypocrite is to be faulted for lying about his beliefs, and for living a life of vice. The scamp is to be faulted for living a life of vice, and for promoting vice.

    Now, both the hypocrite and the scamp live immoral lives, so the question is, what's worse, lying about your beliefs, or endorsing immorality? I'm sorry, but it seems obvious to me that it's far worse to endorse immorality than it is to lie about your beliefs. A person who lies about his beliefs does lie, but at least he promotes the good; the scamp may not lie, but he promotes evil. The latter seems far worse to me.

    Here's a way to think about it: who do you despise more, Ted Haggard or Fred Phelps? Phelps has integrity while Haggard is a hypocrite. Personally, I think it's obvious that Phelps is far worse than Haggard. (And, to make it clear, I never was a fan of Haggard.)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anyway, you don't have to accept the argument. I just thought I'd throw it out there to see what you think. Agree or disagree, it does seem to me to open up some fascinating areas for discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  29. " it's better to endorse a virtue you don't practice than it is to endorse a vice you do practice."

    Maybe not.
    Who's to say my actions are vices?

    I'm into sex with women of all sorts. I smoke. I like to say "fuck", "shit", and various other supposedly foul words. I endorse these actions.

    You may see them as vices, sins even. But, I have no such feelings. Sure they may bad for me, but I am a big boy.

    I think, Eric, one must not impose their value judgements on others for your virtue may be my vice and my vice may be your virtue.

    BUT, if I endorse a set of morals, I should be held accountable to those said same morals. I should not, however, be held accountable to someone else's moral code.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Now, both the hypocrite and the scamp live immoral lives, so the question is, what's worse, lying about your beliefs, or endorsing immorality? I'm sorry, but it seems obvious to me that it's far worse to endorse immorality than it is to lie about your beliefs. A person who lies about his beliefs does lie, but at least he promotes the good; the scamp may not lie, but he promotes evil. The latter seems far worse to me.
    ----------------
    No. The scamp is clearly seen as a scamp by most people. The hypocrite is seen as a good person by most people. A person that wishes to be moral will never follow the scamp. A person that wishes to be moral will follow the hypocrite, and not only in his "good words' but also in his hypocrisy. Plus about a thousand other reasons that make this a silly descent into word parsing.

    You are arguing speciously, with considerable skill. I must admit that this offends me. What should I do? How to treat you? With respect? You are not earning any, sir.

    Well, at least you're entertaining. Immoral, but entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Aww, Saint Brian,
    I saw the title of the blog and thought it was an atheist one.
    What you say in it can only mean one thing to me.
    How very Christian of you!
    JG ^^

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mac made my other points for me. Thanks mac.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I saw the title of the blog and thought it was an atheist one.
    What you say in it can only mean one thing to me.
    How very Christian of you!
    ---------------
    Oh, you have cut me to the quick, sir!

    To quote Zell Miller "In the old days I'd have challenged you to a duel!"

    ReplyDelete
  34. And if I may add....

    The hypocrite is dishonest to himself, more so than to others. If he really believed the virtues he endorses, he could surely follow them.

    The scoundrel, who endorses no such code, is beter. At least, he's honest to himself, thereby, more worthy of others trust.

    ReplyDelete
  35. It would seem hypocritical for you to hate someone who appears to be losing very quickly their faith.
    Rather than delighting in it and helping to pull him completely away.
    Dance? No, I don'e dance with the male gender.
    Just ain't natural.
    I suppose I could call you to the carpet. If that turns you on.
    But, dance, definitely not, sir!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Agree or disagree, it does seem to me to open up some fascinating areas for discussion.
    --------------
    True enough, I'll grant you that.

    ReplyDelete
  37. It would seem hypocritical for you to hate someone who appears to be losing very quickly their faith.
    Rather than delighting in it and helping to pull him completely away.
    ------------
    I wouldn't hate someone who was quickly losing their faith, I'd congratulate them on becoming an adult, on their right of passage into the world of free thought. I'd delight in it, in the sense that I'd be celebrating it with them.
    I hope that clears it up.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dance? No, I don'e dance with the male gender.
    Just ain't natural.
    I suppose I could call you to the carpet. If that turns you on.
    -------
    Hmm. I was speaking of an argumentative tango, but thank you for revealing your homophobia, I guess. Good to know.

    ReplyDelete
  39. If you delight in it so much, why do you struggle so much with trying to not hate them?
    That's perplexing and conflicting emotions and ideas overspent on even keeping track of someone who you like to call hypochrist.
    Sounds like you have issues. The carpet reference was a joke that you didn't get.

    And, just because I'm hetero, why do you call me homophobic?

    Do you tell homos that they are heterophobic simply because they butt fuck other men?

    You must see how stupid you sound.

    Grow up if you want a man to man debate!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Do YOU like dancing with men?
    Seriously. This is not a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Eric, if you put your mind to it you could convince ten thousand Christians that Jesus only went into the messiah business because he couldn't make a table that didn't wobble.

    I must admit that you impress me.

    Hey, if Jesus was a shitty carpenter, could he at least make a well-formed stool?

    Discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  42. George said...
    Do YOU like dancing with men?
    Seriously. This is not a joke.
    ------------
    (sigh)

    Okay George. No, I do not dance with men. That is because I do not happen to be gay. And I'm quite sure that you aren't either. (Or at least that you don't think that you are...)
    Fair enough? Feel more secure now, bunnykins?

    :-)

    You guys really have a problem with the gay, huh? To me, it makes you weak, not real men. Silly boys going "EWWW!" and "YUCKY!!!" instead of realizing that you're dissing someone elses entire life out of arrogance and prudishness.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The carpet reference was a joke that you didn't get.
    ---------
    You really think that?

    Wow. You're not very savvy, are you.

    There's a difference between not getting a joke, and getting it, along with the fact that the first time you got it you were twelve.

    "Oooooh, carpet! Mmmmm!"

    I bet you tell great fart jokes, too.

    ReplyDelete
  44. And, just because I'm hetero, why do you call me homophobic?
    -----------
    Because you brought it up, of course. I said tango, in what I thought was a fairly obvious reference to an argument and not a literal dance between men, and you *needed* to affirm to all that you 'don't do that' etc. Defensive, you are. And defensive means homophobic in this context.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Actually George, the way that you apparently need to constantly announce to us all how hetero you are, I'm starting to think you're a christian gay-in-denial. They all talk like that, too.

    Denial isn't just a standard Christian mental state you know. It is also a word that sounds like the name of a big river in Egypt.

    ReplyDelete
  46. And, just because I'm hetero, why do you call me homophobic?
    ----------
    I mean, let's analyze the sentence above.

    "Just because I'm hetero"

    Who said anything about that? We haven't discussed it. No aspersions were yet cast on your sexuality, just that you might be homophobic. So why even bring it up? Just in case I even THOUGHT that you might be, HORROR OF HORRORS, Gay?

    See my point here? You're defensive about it. So you're either a straight homophobe, or a closeted gay in denial. If the latter, let it out, dude. No sense in pissing your life away as a hypochrist.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Do you tell homos that they are heterophobic simply because they butt fuck other men?
    ----------
    You can't even help yourself. You keep on proving how much you hate homosexuality, over and over.

    ReplyDelete
  48. If you delight in it so much, why do you struggle so much with trying to not hate them?
    --------
    I missed this buried in all your nonsense there, sorry.

    You are saying that "hypochrists" are "christians on the verge of losing their faith?" That explains your earlier comment that puzzled me

    BZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong definition. They are TOTALLY SECURE in their faith that they are better than everyone else, so help them God. Amd you seem to be one of them, or at least you certainly act like them.

    Apparently you don't even get the (obvious) definition of the word. Jeeze! Do I need to get remedial on your ass?

    ReplyDelete
  49. onrediBrian:
    "So if I take what you (and Kerri) say to heart, the appropriate response to the hypochrist is or should be indifference or pity?

    Or are you saying that in the case where they become involved in politics, that it's appropriate to 'hate' them, at least in the sense of actively fighting against their influence?

    July 14, 2009 11:00 PM"

    Au contraire, mon frere!
    If religionists (Christians in particular, at least in the U.S.A.) did not insist upon inserting their beliefs into the public domain (i.e. public schools, courthouses, tax supported venues, modifi9cation of the Constitution, etc. etc,), the best way to deal with them would be to ignore them. This approach not only would avoid the most unpleasantry or irrelevance, but would, if one wished to do so, provide the most annoyance back at them. Certainly, since they insist upon "getting my attention" by their many efforts to force their beliefs on me, I must try to counter their efforts, at least in the political venue. Other than in the political sense, in my particular case, none of this rises to the level of "hatred", which for me would be recognition that they had "gotten to me" at a very nasty level. Since I do not voluntarily pay attention to them except under circumstances of my own choosing (like this blog, for instance), I can spare myself the emotional energy of "hatred". Mind you, I understand that many of us choose to express extreme displeasure as "hatred". For me, this term would be reserved for someone like Hitler or Pol Pot, but this is, after all, just a matter of personal semantics.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Brian, yes, the hypocrite lies, but what's worse: to lie about your beliefs concerning the good but to endorse the good, or to live a life of vice and to promote vice? Eric"


    I think the key word here is "promote". Hypocrisy only matters to anyone but the hypocrite if the individual in question is attempting to influence others to his/her espoused "beliefs". Unless he/she is a preacher, a teacher, a politician, or someone else in a position of public trust (either elected or appointed), or has used his espoused (but not abided by) beliefs to obtain some position of authority or trust, his/her hypocrisy should be of no concern to anyone else. Unfortunately, those of us who are either honest with ourselves and the public (not hypocrites) or totally deluded as to our own hypocrisy can hardly avoid the impact of all of the above.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Certainly, since they insist upon "getting my attention" by their many efforts to force their beliefs on me, I must try to counter their efforts, at least in the political venue. Other than in the political sense, in my particular case, none of this rises to the level of "hatred", which for me would be recognition that they had "gotten to me" at a very nasty level. Since I do not voluntarily pay attention to them except under circumstances of my own choosing (like this blog, for instance), I can spare myself the emotional energy of "hatred".
    -Harvey
    -------------------
    That sounds like good advice. I like that way of thinking, that if I 'hate' them, I'm letting them get to me, which is weakness on my part. A good thing for me to meditate upon.

    Plus let's define my usage of the word 'hatred.' The hatred that I do not want to feel.

    Visceral dislike. Repugnance. Disgust. All wrapped into one lovely emotional morass. Sadness too, at the waste of human minds and the waste of human spiritual potential, if you will. Anger at the people that told this huge lie that is religion, is in there too, so Constantine and Eusebius and others piss me off royally for their macchiavellian evil lies mixed in with scripture and dogma, and the selective editing of the Bible too of course, and Constantine's idea of a "Just War" defeating the nonviolence inherent in what Jesus worship used to be beforhand.
    A lot of negativity for sure.

    But not any violent impulse. Oh, other than there are times that I think a good slap might wake them up, but other than that, no violent impulse, no desire for their deaths.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Here's a way to think about it: who do you despise more, Ted Haggard or Fred Phelps? Phelps has integrity while Haggard is a hypocrite.
    ------------
    I thought about this one. On the surface it seems easy; Phelps is more openly dispicable.

    Because Haggard hid it better, behind a pretense of the opposite.

    But who do I despise more when I use my brain?

    Haggard.

    Think about it. How many FOLLOWERS does Phelps have?

    How many did Haggard have?

    Remember, to me Haggard's style of Christianity is inherently flawed, even quite actively 'evil' in the sense that it harms a lot of people.

    Nobody but the already-mentally-ill would follow Phelps.

    But innocent naive people who just want to be 'good' and 'Godly' and go to heaven and not the hell they're terrified of, will and did and do follow Haggard and others like him, many others like him. Right into perdition. Into hypochristianity.

    So Haggard did a lot more harm in the world.

    And how do people ever get crazy enough to follow Phelps?

    By the conditioning they received from the likes of Haggard et al. He's the gateway psychosis. The first step onto the slippery slope of reality-denial.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Brian, suppose, arguendo, that Haggard endorsed all and only the moral precepts you in fact support, so that your 'but his Christianity was evil' objection doesn't have any purchase. Now ask yourself, who is worse, the Haggard who taught everything you believe to be good, but who in fact rejected it all in his personal life, or Phelps?

    Here, we get to the root of the issue: both the hypocrite and the scamp live immoral lives, so, what's worse:

    1. Endorsing what is in fact good, even though you personally reject it,

    or

    2. Endorsing what is in fact evil.

    Again, both they hypocrite and the scamp live immoral lives. In fact, let's suppose they live identical personal lives, so that the only difference between them is what they do publicly. So, what's worse (sticking with the 'Haggard' who preaches precepts that are in perfect accord with yours):

    1'. A person who publicly supports science, gay rights, etc. but who personally rejects them,

    or

    2'. A person who publicly opposes science and gay rights, and who says so publicly.

    As I see it, 2' is the worse person. Endorsing and promoting falsehoods and evil is worse than privately supporting it but lying about it. In short, 1's lie is not as reprehensible as 2's promotion of evil.

    (Harvey, I'm using examples in which evil is promoted to bring out the differences more sharply.)

    ReplyDelete
  54. Brian, suppose, arguendo, that Haggard endorsed all and only the moral precepts you in fact support, so that your 'but his Christianity was evil' objection doesn't have any purchase.
    ------------
    I will suppose no such thing. The nerve of you!

    His brand of Christianity was 'evil' in the sense of harmful to others, psychologically and emotionally and mentally in the sense of espousing ignorance and rejecting logic and learning and secular knowledge. It denies reality, as do all religions, but in a most pernicious way. It activly programs people to not enquire, not ask, not ever doubt themselves, and even encourages them to grow their egos and not the opposite. It is aimed at their egos, in fact. It is programming. Not spirituality.

    And don't forget that it's only one fairy tale out of thousands. All gods are equally invalid to me.

    You ask me to pretend all that isn't true, but if that were the case Haggard wouldn't be a hypocrite. He'd be a happily adjusted gay man with a good love life. And not a preacher, since his ego wouldn't be the size of Gibraltar.

    Yuu attempt to nullify my argument, but not by being correct or right or true, but by a technicality and distraction technique. Please don't do that to me. I'm sensitized to it. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  55. Brian, fine, suppose we're talking about 'Ned Haggard.' Who is Ned Haggard? He's someone who publicly endorses beliefs and precepts that mirror yours exactly. The only problem is, he's a hypocrite.

    So, who's worse, Ned Haggard or Fred Phelps?

    ReplyDelete
  56. 1'. A person who publicly supports science, gay rights, etc. but who personally rejects them,

    or

    2'. A person who publicly opposes science and gay rights, and who says so publicly.
    ------------
    You can't simplify like this, and you know it.

    For instance, number 1 above would have a much higher chance of getting elected President, and once he did, his REAL side would come out, and he'd be in a position to accomplish thousands of times more evil in the world thant number 2 ever could dream of.

    All your comparisons are 'no-brainers' only in the opposite direction of what you propound is the obvious interpretation. So I must doubt in your moral strength, sir, if you cannot see the obvious, or are ignoring it intentionaly. Perhaps your morality is all based on a fear of consequences in the afterlife; that would explain it's weakness. Coercion cannot produce morality in a man any more than beatings can produce gentleness in a dog.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Brian, fine, suppose we're talking about 'Ned Haggard.' Who is Ned Haggard? He's someone who publicly endorses beliefs and precepts that mirror yours exactly. The only problem is, he's a hypocrite.

    So, who's worse, Ned Haggard or Fred Phelps?
    ---------------------
    So Ned mirrors my beliefs and precepts, so he's not anything like Phelps in public but he really is in private?

    Already answered this one.

    Ned is still worse, because he is capable of more harm, by appealing to the SANE and not only to the INSANE, even though in reality he is INSANE and so whoever he appeals to will likely partake of his insanity at some point in one form or another.

    Phelps looks worse on the surface. Is that as deep as you're looking?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Hey, a thought...

    About "Ned Haggard" and Fred Phelps.

    Which one is closer to how Satan would act in the world? WWSD? (lol!)

    Would Satan be the obvious one?

    Really?

    No, he would be good 'ole Ned, who always sounds so sensible...
    and you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Brian, you're confusing morality and consequences. To show that these are in fact distinct, imagine a deeply moral but incompetent person who intends to do good things, but who in fact causes much harm. Now contrast him with a deeply evil but incompetent person, who intends to do evil things, but who accomplishes much good. It's still the case that the first person is moral and the second immoral, even though the first man's actions resulted in much evil, and the second man's actions resulted in much good. (They need not be leaders of nations; they can be average Joes like us.)

    So, try to focus on the relative morality of Ned Haggard and Fred Phelps. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that they both accomplish the same amount of good and evil, so the consequences of their actions aren't relevant, and so we can focus on the moral worth of their character alone.

    As I see it, the heart of the argument is that the most depraved state is one in which a person openly advocates what he knows to be immoral, not one in which he advocates what's moral while privately supporting what's immoral. To take a pop culture example, think of Heath Ledger's Joker as the exemplar of a fully integrated, purely evil person. He's far worse than any hypocrite; indeed, even the worst imaginable hypocrite is puny by comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  60. (I think I've stumbled upon the reason why Christians can't see that they're evil. They think that the worse evil is, the more obvious is gets! LOL!

    The opposite is true. The worst evils in the world are the ones that appear as great goods. Real evil always calls itself good, and very convincingly at that, because real evil believes itself to be good.

    ReplyDelete
  61. imagine a deeply moral but incompetent person who intends to do good things, but who in fact causes much harm.
    ----------
    Sir Snake, you are so slippery.

    Incompetent?

    Deeply moral but incompetent is not a hypocrite. Incompetence is not intentional.
    Deeply immoral but appearing moral is the hypocrite.

    You're starting to sound like one, my friend. I beg you to stop. You don't seem to realize that I see through it when you do it.

    WWSD? Ask Eric. He's got it down pat. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  62. "I think I've stumbled upon the reason why Christians can't see that they're evil."

    Huh? This makes me question whether you in fact know anything about Christianity.

    Chesterton was once asked to write an essay, which was to be printed in the newspaper, answering the question, 'What's wrong with the world?' His answer was typically Christian:

    "Dear sirs, I am. Sincerely, G.K. Chesterton"

    At the heart of Christianity is the belief that there is a moral law that we fail to live up to. C.S. Lewis said that this fact is essential to all clear thinking about the human condition.

    I'm reminded of something else Chesterton said. He remarked on the blatantly contradictory manner in which Christianity is attacked. Your criticism, viz. that Christians think too highly of themselves and of their righteousness, is regularly contradicted by the criticism that Christianity creates in people a chronic and morbid sense of guilt and worthlessness. Man, you guys can't even get your story straight!

    ReplyDelete
  63. "Deeply moral but incompetent is not a hypocrite."

    No kidding, I never said it is. As I said quite clearly, the point of that illustration was to distinguish one's moral character from the consequences of one's actions. Come on, Brian, you're certainly bright enough to keep up! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  64. At the heart of Christianity is the belief that there is a moral law that we fail to live up to.
    -----------
    Agreed. This is evil at the heart.
    You 'fail to live up to it' so it's futile to even try. You're excused. And you feel inadequate all the time since you 'know' that you'll always fail to live up to some divine scheme of morality.

    Please stop giving me the reacharound, Eric. I respect you enough not to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Listen to Lorenzo Albacete if you want to learn something about Christianity. I think you'll like this man tremendously, and perhaps even come to see Christianity as many Christians see it.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Come on, Brian, you're certainly bright enough to keep up! ;)
    ----------
    Hey, you're certainly bright enough to realize the moral erosion quality of a lifestyle where you spend your time trying to prove a belief (if you even believe it) knowing full well that you're dissembling in order to do so, and not caring about that.

    I can't argue speciously. It is disgusting to me. And when you do so to me, my stomach gets just a tiny bit sick. Just a touch of nausea. It's my reaction to the intuitive perception of falsity, even when you hide it well amongst extraneous terminology and references. I have a hard time digesting lies, no matter how sophisticated.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Msgr. Albaceti (Larry the White Whale?) apparently disagrees with my browser. Me no able to view that video.

    Must be a virus in it.

    No, not a computer virus. The virus of Christian apologetics.

    I have a hell of a good version of MacAffee.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Brian, go here and check out the fourth video from the top (with this caption on the side: "Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete, formerly a physicist, a professor of theology at St. Joseph's Seminary in New York, and president of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico, is...).

    ReplyDelete
  69. if you want to learn something about Christianity.
    --------
    If I want to learn more convoluted lies about it that make it look 'not-evil' you mean. No thanks. As it is I need antacids.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Is it going to be 79 minutes of wingless chickens? I mean, I'm already sick of it.

    I'll check it out later when I have more time.

    Jeeze, you throw me 79 minutes of a boring old priest in response to a few sentences. What'd I ever do to you?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Eric, you do realize that to me, being a Christian in any form is to be a reality-denier, to the exact extent that you are a Christian. Especially when one is the hypochristian type, the Pharisee.

    Thus a biography that begins 'formerly a physicist and now a professor of theology, a Catholic..." is, the way I read it, really saying 'formerly a sensible person that allowed his implanted programming to overcome his common sense and pervert his mind to the point of a pleasant psychosis..."
    Just wanted to be clear.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Brian, I get that, but I think it's because you haven't been exposed to a robust, intellectually respectable elucidation -- and defense! -- of just what Christians believe. You lump all of us in with sweaty, teary-eyed, vapid, self righteous, money-grubbing televangelists. I'm just trying, by introducing you to someone like Albacete, to show you another side of Christianity -- one that's humble (Albacete says, when asked if atheists or Buddhists can be saved, 'yes, and probably before I will,' and goes on to explain how this is in fact orthodox Catholicism) and intellectually sound.

    ReplyDelete
  73. a professor of theology at St. Joseph's Seminary in New York
    --------
    I love their children's aspirin. Did he invent them?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Well Eric, without even watching the dear monsignior I can tell you that if he espouses a truly *humble* form of Christianity, then it's a huge improvement over the more common, egotistical variety, and I heartily approve of it. Whether Catholic or not.

    Humility is what they're lacking, most of them. That and intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Eric, I consider Botts a decent, humble, open-minded Christian.

    If that's what you're selling here, more power to you.

    But knowing you, it has to be twistier than that.

    Sorry dude, but you've proven yourself more than adequately in the past. In all your thoughts and words, etc...

    ReplyDelete
  76. Brian, I agree (though I would say many, not most). In fact, I can say with David Bentley Hart that "there are numerous forms of Christian beliefs and practices for which I would be hard pressed to muster a kind word from the depths of my heart, and the rejection of which by atheists or skeptics strikes me as perfectly laudable." However, not all forms of Christianity are like this.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "Sorry dude, but you've proven yourself more than adequately in the past. In all your thoughts and words, etc..."

    Come on now, let's not confuse careful, subtle argumentation for duplicity. I may be dead wrong or obtuse (or both), but I'm not duplicitous. I'm just trying to figure things out, as you are. We're just coming to different conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Come on now, let's not confuse careful, subtle argumentation for duplicity. I may be dead wrong or obtuse (or both), but I'm not duplicitous. I'm just trying to figure things out, as you are. We're just coming to different conclusions.
    ----------
    Then... then you don't realize you're doing it.

    You're a talented 'explicator.' So because you already *believe* in Christianity, you naturally turn your considerable verbal talents to explaining it. But it's not explicable without telling lies or at least half-truths. So your talents cause you to dissemble and give specious arguments, all beautiful edifices of well-constructed logic, and apparently all without you realizing it.

    Cool.

    ReplyDelete
  79. David Bentley Hart
    ---------------
    I always listen to people named after a statue, a car, and a deer.

    In other words, "Who?"

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  80. Come on now, let's not confuse careful, subtle argumentation for duplicity.
    ------
    Oh Let's.

    Especially when it's identical.

    Are you having as much fun here as I am? Hope so...

    ReplyDelete
  81. However, not all forms of Christianity are like this.
    ------------
    Agreed. Out of the several thousand varieties, there are at the very least, three kinds that are pretty much okay, and healthy for people to believe in.

    As long as you're in one of the three, no problem.

    ReplyDelete
  82. The etymology of the name "eric" is "Eternal Ruler."

    More and more, it becomes apparent that you are Satan.

    ;-)

    If you are, I have a question or two for you:

    How did you manage to fool God into punishing all snakes forever for what you did in the Garden in the guise of a snake? And how did you keep your plans for the rebellion in heaven from him?

    I guess, much like Republicans, God is pretty fucking gullible, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  83. I'm just trying to figure things out, as you are.
    -----------
    I wish that were true.

    In order to really do that, in order to really *be* that person, a real seeker after truth, you would have to give up on your beliefs and try facts for a while, and then perhaps form new beliefs based more in facts. Facts like the very cold, hard fact that Catholicism is only a (failed) form of Christianity, of which there are many other forms, none of which are any more believable or significant than the worship of Horus and Isis, or Odin and Thor, or Hecate and Astarte and Mithras and Tammuz and Sol Invictus and Cernunnos and Ahura Mazda and Ahriman and the Hindu Gods and well, insert name of any other fictitious god here.

    Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings. But instead of being able to explain the inexplicable, if you really seek after truth you need to develop other talents, such as skepticism and self-inquiry and reality-testing, and most of all, a devotion to the truth, even when it's not as pleasant as the lie.

    July 16, 2009 12:42 AM

    ReplyDelete
  84. The fact that you started all this with a defense of hypocrisy itself doesn't speak well for your chances, Eric. But I'm pulling for ya.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "Come on now, let's not confuse careful, subtle argumentation for duplicity. I may be dead wrong or obtuse (or both), but I'm not duplicitous. I'm just trying to figure things out, as you are. We're just coming to different conclusions.
    ----------
    Then... then you don't realize you're doing it.

    You're a talented 'explicator.' So because you already *believe* in Christianity, you naturally turn your considerable verbal talents to explaining it. But it's not explicable without telling lies or at least half-truths. So your talents cause you to dissemble and give specious arguments, all beautiful edifices of well-constructed logic, and apparently all without you realizing it."

    Gentlemen:

    A view from the sidelines, if you will....

    It is apparent that each of you, in his own way, is "defending" a concept; Eric, his "type" of Christianity, Brian, his "view" of Christianity in general. Each of you seems to be arguing from personal experience; Eric from his (I think) "born again" acceptance of the Holy Spirit, Brian from his extreme distaste for his own early experiences with Christanity and, perhaps, the mental anguish of discovery that your parents, teachers, and, perhaps, others whose opinions you were brought up to trust were not only telling you lies, but were often hypocrites to boot. As a result, neither of you seems able to get away from this emotional coloration to try to discuss things on a purely rational basis. None of these observations are intended as personal criticism, inasmuch as I am just as likely to do the same from time to time (I am trying to avoid my own hypocrisy here!) I must agree, however, that it is interesting that all of this began as a discusion of hypocrisy, rather than a discussion of Chriatianity, per se. Apparently, Eric does understand how avoidance of hypocrisy may separate those few (unfortunately) true believing and behaving Christians from the vast majority of "Hypochrists" that Brian finds so evil and upsetting.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Further....

    Brian, you seem to find Botts' version of Christianity somewhat more acceptable because he projects honesty and sincerity in his beliefs, apparently "lives" his view of Jesus' only two "important" commandments, and does not seem to be trying to coerce anyone to accept his personal version of "truth". In short, he does not appear to be a hypocrite and does seem to be trying to "bear witness" by example, rather than by proselytizing. At least, this is how it looks to me. You have occasionally said that you "don't have a "problem" with most of what the New Testament tells us Jesus tried to teach us, even though you do not believe in God (as I do not). As a result, I can easily see why "Hypochristy" is so important to you in your criticism of Christianity, in general. I can also see why Eric feels the need to try to "apologize" for the obviuos hypocrisy inherent in most of the agressively proselytizing fundamentalist Christians we read about almost every day.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Brian, you seem to find Botts' version of Christianity somewhat more acceptable because he projects honesty and sincerity in his beliefs, apparently "lives" his view of Jesus' only two "important" commandments, and does not seem to be trying to coerce anyone to accept his personal version of "truth". In short, he does not appear to be a hypocrite and does seem to be trying to "bear witness" by example, rather than by proselytizing.
    ------------------------
    Of course. He's a real Christian. He lives it and doesn't just talk it.

    Is not being a hypocrite too much to ask?

    ReplyDelete
  88. It is apparent that each of you, in his own way, is "defending" a concept; Eric, his "type" of Christianity, Brian, his "view" of Christianity in general.
    -----------
    Eric is a Catholic. I don't think he's 'born-again.'

    Are you Eric?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Hi Brian! How you've been? Im enjoying your writings, as usual and would like to add to the hypocrisy topic.

    I would rather call the defenders of "traditional family" values ignorant more so than hypocrites, (even though they are). It seems the ignorance comes from defending a "traditional" system that so happens to not be so traditional.


    Marriage, in its historicity, was a contract between man and woman. But that is only because it was not a contract based on love, as Catholics would like you to believe. It was an institution based on a working partnership between tribes, or large families. Marriages were purely for creating legitimate children for protecting bloodlines, inheritance, and to establish working relationships for the exchange of resources between kin and neighbor. As Genesis clearly states in chapter 1 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

    No mention of love in Genesis up until Abraham speaks to his wife in Genesis 20.
    The home was the starting point of all economic production. The protection, production of resources and creation of children guaranteed its survival. To marry for love would have been considered ridiculous. Up until the American Industrial revolution, marriage was controlled by parents, church and state. Conservatives of those days argument against marriage for love reformers was that love is an irrational emotion. It would ruin the family in that it would provide equal emotional treatment, individualism, ruin a family economically and that love in marriage would cause the divorce rate to double. They were right!
    Illegitimate children and single mothers were not rare. Extra marital affairs were tolerated and were considered private matters as long as no children were produced. Even the church denied inheritance and the adoption of an illegitimate child! So now that marriage is a decision based on love, infidelities hurt and touch us deeper than it did those who married for economic purposes. And now that marriage is based on love, homosexual couples seek to also make the love commitment that so many heterosexual couples have enjoyed for the past 2 centuries.
    So now that love is the main reason for marriage, why cheat? Infidelity of your spouse is a bigger hypocrisy than the erroneous, ignorant teaching of a false traditional family values. And that’s because most people of faith are uneducated about the truth of the world and of their own faith.
    I do understand how you can hate willful stupidity! Especially those people who are in a powerful political position to hurt and oppress the liberties of others. Those people we must fight, but with articulated arguments, facts and the representation of those who wish to be free! If you turn your hate into a fight it is much more fulfilling than the hate. I try to hate the idea and not the person. People die, and beliefs move on. My hatred for the beliefs is what pushes me to fight against faith based sex ed, science ed legislation, free speech and oppression. I would be a hypocrite if I didn't!
    Like Mr T said "I PITY THE FOOL"

    ReplyDelete
  90. Goddess! So good to see you here!

    Sensible, well thought-out and eloquent commentary as usual, I see. You're always welcome here. Not that I'd kick you to the curb if you were a scatterbrain but it's nicer that you're not... ;-)

    Thank you for stopping by. Hope all is well... Did you see my new little addition to the family on the very bottom of the main page of this blog? My new son was born three weeks ago!

    Confirmation word "factisti." That's what I am, a member of the factisti. I'm a factista.

    ReplyDelete
  91. For a saint you generally miss the big picture, and that is lying and money go hand in hand. Hypocrisy is an industry. And here you've gone about trying to destroy a perfectly lucrative business.

    I remember when your grandmother paid for your sainthood. To think how disappointed she'd be to know that you're using your position to complain about a way to make money.

    I guess that means you won't be blessing my Christ Casino. We're offering 50 free Jesus bucks to the first 100 people at the door.

    Judge you!

    ReplyDelete
  92. I remember when your grandmother paid for your sainthood.
    ------------
    Did she take out her dentures first at least?

    ReplyDelete
  93. I guess that means you won't be blessing my Christ Casino. We're offering 50 free Jesus bucks to the first 100 people at the door.

    Judge you!
    -----------------------
    Salvation, and at such a deal! But I cannot bless it. Not without a contractual agreement as to compensation. My lawyers will do lunch with your lawyers and we'll come to some terms, I'm sure, you being a reasonable man and knowing the P.R. value of a Gen-Yew-Ine Sanctified Endorsement from an actual Saint and all...

    Judge you too, and the equine you perambulated in on, you scamp!

    (Eric has taught me a new invective)

    ReplyDelete
  94. WOW! Congrats Brian, he's gorgeous! Can't say the same for the dog though……....
    I know how much you've wanted to be a father! How time flies! It brings back memories of my own son when he was that little. Back in the day when I worked from home more and he was still a quiet, and content little boy who slept a lot. Back when I was on this site more……....
    Now he doesn't stop, he's 3. He is the biggest skeptic of all, believes nothing you say until he sees it. If I say "be a good boy and mommy will give you a treat," his usual reply is "let me see treat first." Unbelievable!
    FL legislative session is over so now I have more time to drop in and put my 2 cents in! Looking forward to catching up with the whole crew!
    Take care

    ReplyDelete
  95. Can't say the same for the dog though……....
    ------------
    I'll have you know that 'that dog' is among the most beautiful things on earth.

    He's really a little old jewish man in a fur suit, but we love him. And he is great with the baby.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Brian,

    Sorry if this elementary to you. Pema Chodron was explaining that feeling you were describing as 'shenpa.'

    She says that (what I'm assuming is a basic Buddhist tenet) "simply by recognizing what's happening we can nip aggression or craving in the bud- our own and that of others. As we become more familiar with doing this, our wisdom becomes a stronger force than shenpa."

    My opinion about this is that it wouldn't be much help with strong pathological addictions. But in your case and frankly in general I think she has a point.

    Hope it helps.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Brian,

    Sorry if this elementary to you. Pema Chodron was explaining that feeling you were describing as 'shenpa.'
    ------------------------
    No my dear Watson, it isn't elementary, and thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  98. And goddess is right, he's a cutie! Congratulations.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Here's a way to think about it: who do you despise more, Ted Haggard or Fred Phelps? Phelps has integrity while Haggard is a hypocrite. Personally, I think it's obvious that Phelps is far worse than Haggard. (And, to make it clear, I never was a fan of Haggard.)
    -Eric
    -------------
    I missed this too, in the sense that you snuck it by me, Eric.

    You cast Haggard as the hypocrite and Phelps as *the man with integrity.* Horsehockey. They're both HUGE hypocrites. Phelps is even a worse hypocrite when you are considering the fact that he claims to be a Christian and his whole philosophy is based in HATRED. So a false comparison.

    Damn, you're a snakey individual.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Thanks, Oneblood. He is pretty cute at that. I think we'll keep him.

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  101. think of Heath Ledger's Joker as the exemplar of a fully integrated, purely evil person. He's far worse than any hypocrite; indeed, even the worst imaginable hypocrite is puny by comparison.
    -Eric
    --------------------
    Far worse than any hypocrite?

    How about far worse than Hitler?

    Didn't Hitler promose great things for Germany, and maintain that he was a Christian as a facade for the people to latch onto? Didn't he proclaim moral superiority etc? Thus he was a huge hypocrite.

    Any hypothetical hypocrite that is as bad as the Joker on the inside, but presents a facade of respectability on the outside, is worse than the Joker. Because people like the Joker, super-villians who are openly evil, don't happen outside of a fantasy story. In order to get that evil in the real world, you have to be a hypocrite in the sense of hiding your evil away from people, at least until you have real power. People that are THAT openly evil, like the Joker, do not rise to real power. They have to appear good to their subjects or at least their supporters on some level in order to consolidate power in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Again, on talking to Eric, I am struck by how a Christian views evil.

    He seems to think that evil is obvious, and really bad evil is 'obviouser.'

    Totally the opposite is true.

    The most pernicious, most dangerous forms of evil all masquerade as good. That's why they're really bad in the first place. And the most evil people all masquerade as good, too. No truly evil man would be stupid enough to just show it on the surface. Some level of hypocrisy is required. A mask is needed. And that mask has to fool people, at least his closest supporters. Think Fred Phelps again. His mask is that he is a preacher, a man of God. A common mask amongst the truly evil, since it's the mask of goodness.

    ReplyDelete
  103. As a note, on reading back, I misinterpreted a point by Eric when he was trying to illustrate the difference between intent and result. The one about the "deeply moral but incompetent" person.

    Sorry, Eric. I was tired, is my only excuse. So my response to that made little sense.

    All my other points stand however.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Asylum Seeker has a worthwhile take on the subject of hypocrisy... I hadn't read it before just now. We coincidentally both did a post on hypocrites apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Brian,

    I have to agree with Eric. When you consider racism in the form of the Nation of Islam it is far better than the racism of the Nazis no?

    Think about it, black racism is better than white racism.

    They aren't equal at all! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  106. Eric's point is in 'damage done.' That's the norm he's arguing from even though he doesn't know it.

    It's kind of a negative utilitarianism, only with measured evil.

    Brian, as an unbeliever you're arguing for a better standard! Who could blame you for that? Wait... don't answer.

    Eric's trying to mask a relativism he doesn't believe in and pass it off as an absolutist argument. Yet you actually have the more "Christian" position.

    Eric: "Isn't it better to have less evil than more evil, Brian?"

    StB: "Isn't it better to not have evil, Eric?"

    Eric: "You're missing my point."

    StB: "No I'm not."

    Eric: "Yes you are."

    StB: "No I'm not."

    Eric: "Here's a link to a smart guy who'll tell you that you're wrong in an interesting way."

    StB: "No thanks."

    ReplyDelete
  107. Eric: "Isn't it better to have less evil than more evil, Brian?"
    -Oneblood
    ------------
    Yeah, I'm still not seeing how it's less evil to show your evil than it is to hide it behind a facade of good. Eric is looking at it superficially. Obvious, surface, self-declaring evil. Because its obvious it seems the more severe, the worse of the two. But I see it the opposite way. The masked evil, being just as bad in the person's heart as the evil of the other guy that doesn't mask it, establishes that we have an equivalency, and THEN we add in the fact that by being able to disguise it effectively, the apparently good but secretively evil man is capable of so much more damage, much deeper evil.

    Fred Phelps couldn't have done the damage that George W. Bush did, for instance. He's too obviously evil to ever get elected to high office. But GWB was juuuuuussssst sane-looking enough to get in under the wire. He could fool just enough of the gullible voters who respond to Christian code-words.

    Smarter evil is by definition, worse evil, everything else being equal.

    And I ask again, which one would Satan be, if he were real? Which person, the secretly evil but good-seeming one, or the overtly evil one? In which guise would Satan be able to do more harm?

    I hope I've finally made my point. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  108. Eric: "You're missing my point."

    StB: "No I'm not."

    Eric: "Yes you are."

    StB: "No I'm not."

    Eric: "Here's a link to a smart guy who'll tell you that you're wrong in an interesting way."

    StB: "No thanks."
    ---------------------
    LOL!!! That about covers it.

    Too funny.

    ReplyDelete
  109. "Judge you too, and the equine you perambulated in on, you scamp!"

    Perambulation is a pretty serious accusation Brian. I'm corrupt, but that's getting personal.

    Next you'll be accusing me of using a horse to take a jaunt. The nerve.

    ReplyDelete
  110. B, I posted a postulate on this subject which is begging to be disproven.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Yes Pliny, I read it and I'm almost sure that I agree with it, if I'm understanding how you mean it. I posted a response to your new page just now. Can you 'splain it to me? (Either here or there)

    ReplyDelete
  112. Hi Brain! haven't been for a bit, so congratulations on the new son. But dang, can you try not to let the dog drool all over the kid?

    Hmmm - Hypochristianity. Wow. A topic for which subjects could be found for eons. Epochs, even. Sarah Palin, or Saranfreudeah Palin as I have taken to thinking of her. These bimbos and bimboinas get what theu deserve over and over again, so do I hate them? Sure, a little. But I like many other people enough to not waste too much time on them.

    And to the argument over who is more eveil, Haggerd or Phelps? To paraphrase the Saturday Night Live movie blogger, "bitch pleeeezzze." They are both fast wastes of cellular goo and brain fart matter. Yet they both refer to themselves as REV. Ain't a stitch o'difference between the two as far as I am concerened oither than their "flocks" are of different size. But put their 'flock' in a cowd of 'the gay' and I bet they'd both have the same dodo reaction.
    Cheers.
    Heard from Botts lately?

    ReplyDelete
  113. Sarah "I hunt witches from helicopters" Palin is indeed a hypochrist's hypochrist. She got too close for comfort there for a while, didn't she? Due to Old Warmongering Fart McCain's Alzheimers level judgement we almost got that plastic pseudomoral hillbilly for a VP... And eventually probably prez, too.

    It would have been hard to pick a worse one. Fred Phelp's daughter maybe. Maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  114. I haven't heard from Botts personally but I seem to recall that he blogged for a while a few days back on the old DD blog which is still going, believe it or not. The blog of the living dead, as it were. He's in Syria I think.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Hey Tbrough, was that you in the giant shoe? Way cool.

    Always good to have you stop by.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Yup. That was me in Amsterdam back in May. What a groovy place to spend a week.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Brian, please keep posting more pics of Connor (and Walter =D

    They are so precious.

    Connor looks relaxed and happy.

    Walter looks curious and happy =D

    (And, I'm curious as to how you guys came up with Walter for your cute little pug's name... ;~)

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  118. tbrough said...
    Yup. That was me in Amsterdam back in May. What a groovy place to spend a week.
    ---------------
    Okay, now I'm jealous. My wife and I want to go there badly. But with the new bebe it'll be a while.

    You lucky dog. Amsterdam. What's it like in stoner heaven? Find any fluffy golden stuff?

    (not talking about pubic hair, btw...)

    ReplyDelete
  119. MI, I'm not angry at you, but I do wonder what reason there is to communicate with you. You invariably change your personality from nice to nasty eventually. It seems silly to try, on my part, no? You've already proven yourself too unstable to have a conversation with.

    But allright, I'll bite. Again..

    Walter is his name because he's far too serious to not have a human name, and when we were trying them out on him, Walter stuck.

    ReplyDelete
  120. MI, I just now read your last post to me on my last blog page about reading.

    Thank you.

    Let's try to stay stable then, both of us, okay?

    And why does the fact that your priest is black and has a thick african accent have anything to do with whether I 'worry' or not about how he takes my name?

    :-)

    But please do try to use the Saint Brian the Godless name in the future. The old GHB is dead. Long live Saint Brian, etc.

    Also, a question. Looking at this my most recent post, do you consider yourself a hypochrist? And if not, why not?

    Because there have been times in the past where I could have sworn you were...

    Perhaps you've 'grown' in the interim?

    Oh, and another question, this time about your priest.

    Is he one of the african priests that believe in witches, and has he ever 'found' or 'sniffed out' or identified any witches in his home country? You know, like Sarah Palin's priest.

    Reeeeeally curious about that one.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Interesting exchange with Eric. Although his "arguments" lack seem not to be logically sound. Eric seems to feel that a liar that looks good is better than an honest person who is "bad".

    I would say that a hypochrite does more harm in that he instills a false sense of trust and authority in other people. When that facade is broken, what happens to those that followed the example? The root of belief can be shattered and many of the believers begin to question their own beliefs.

    An honest person always lets you know where he/she stands. You are free to agree with them or not.
    Their "morality", while maybe questionable, is on the table for everyone to see.

    I have to comment on Erics comment of:

    "At the heart of Christianity is the belief that there is a moral law that we fail to live up to. C.S. Lewis said that this fact is essential to all clear thinking about the human condition."

    The reason that I find such fault with this, is that I am being told that I will never, no matter how hard I try, never be good enough for god. This is a lifetime of attempting to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, while being told you will never be good enough. That you were a sinner by the sole virtue of being born. That you have to fail in the end because because if you dont fail, then you are on equal terms with Jesus, and that would ruin the whole show.(imagine if we were all christ-like)

    "In essence, the church has institutionalized guilt as a virtue"(i am quoting.)

    Now thats hypochristy

    ReplyDelete
  122. Interesting exchange with Eric.
    -------------
    Yes, it always is. I hope he never stops coming here to comment. He's a brilliant christian apologist.

    However, in order to become one he unfortunately had to sell his soul to the devil.

    (joke)

    (but one of those jokes with a
    grain of truth to it)

    ReplyDelete
  123. I like my new icon... Very saintish of me.

    As I understand it, the pictured saint is the original saint nicholas...

    So I'm santa, too.

    I also wrote meself a new bio. To go with 'the new me.'

    ReplyDelete
  124. "In essence, the church has institutionalized guilt as a virtue"
    -------------
    Absolutely true.


    So we have a belief system based in fear and control and guilt, with an apparently immoral God at the top, telling us to love him or burn in hell, to believe in Him or burn in hell, to be moral or burn in hell, because He loves us.

    This is not real morality, it's coerced and forced morality. It's not real love, it's coerced, forced love. It's like God is raping us with his love. Take it and like it, or guess what? Burn in hell!

    No wonder it spawns so many psychoses, so much mental illness. It's designed to induce mental illnesses. It's designed to cause the believer to stop thinking forever.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Dear Brian,
    The mention of the African priest was meant in this manner: he most likely did not understand a word I had said.
    The post to you was sincere and trying to give you a cute chuckle.
    I'm sorry if my humor came off to you as sarcastic or anything hurtful.
    The main thing is that I was sorry, confessed it from the bottom of my heart and tried to make good with you.
    Your response is up to you.
    By my own admission, yes, I'm a hypochrist and I need prayerful support to help me along my way.
    I am very happy for you that you are enjoying being a new daddy.
    Have a wonderful summer with you precious family; including Walter- he's so cute!
    Take care,
    Peace and Hugs,
    Mary Irene

    ReplyDelete
  126. The God of the Universe has made you special (worthy of love and kindness).

    He also saved you from being yourself, otherwise you would be punished (worthy of rejection and violation).

    --

    If that isn't a paradox I don't know what is.

    That leads me to a question Brian.

    Do you think hypocrisy could be a natural consequence of embracing paradoxes in certain cases?

    ReplyDelete
  127. I hope this pic goes through.

    I call it, "Ah, the joy of summer mixed with the joy of grandparents"

    =D

    ReplyDelete
  128. Brian, it didn't go through and I pasted the url in the url box.

    http://www.funnyhub.com/pictures/pages/water-bucket-surprise.html

    Let's try this again.....

    said the hypochrist ;)

    ReplyDelete
  129. still didn't work?!

    Brian, I'll email it....

    I know you'll get a chuckle out of this pic!

    ReplyDelete
  130. Do you think hypocrisy could be a natural consequence of embracing paradoxes in certain cases?
    -------------
    Yes, and emphatically so. I have thought this before. The programming demands that believers believe in mutually exclusive things, side-by-side, and accept both as true, which fries the ability to reality-test. They throw cognitive dissonnances at you until your descriminatory ability is gone. So being a hypocrite comes naturally, since you have to be one to yourself in order to buy into it all.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Cute pic, MI. Let's hope he's not that mischievious.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  132. Eric said,

    "At the heart of Christianity is the belief that there is a moral law that we fail to live up to. C.S. Lewis said that this fact is essential to all clear thinking about the human condition.

    I'm reminded of something else Chesterton said. He remarked on the blatantly contradictory manner in which Christianity is attacked. Your criticism, viz. that Christians think too highly of themselves and of their righteousness, is regularly contradicted by the criticism that Christianity creates in people a chronic and morbid sense of guilt and worthlessness. Man, you guys can't even get your story straight!"

    First:
    "...belief that there is a moral law that we fail to live up to."

    Objective morality is a chimera.

    (chimera [kime-meer-a]
    Noun
    1. a wild and unrealistic dream or idea
    2. Greek myth a fire-breathing monster with the head of a lion, body of a goat, and tail of a serpent [Greek khimaira she-goat])

    Use definition 1.

    It belongs squarely in the bin with all the other imaginary stuff Christians spew. You call it 'objective morality', I call it an attempt to coerce others to behave in a way of YOUR choosing, regardless of "good" or "godly" value judgements. Furthermore, all value judgements are subjective, so what it all really boils down to is politics, i.e. the seeking after and exercise of POWER OVER OTHERS.

    Second:
    "...Your criticism, viz. that Christians think too highly of themselves and of their righteousness, is regularly contradicted by the criticism that Christianity creates in people a chronic and morbid sense of guilt and worthlessness."

    There's no contradiction there. The Christians who have the ego problem and the righteousness complex see themselves as the leaders and interlocutors of God's will for his sheeple. The sheeple are the ones who are made to swallow the "morbid sense of guilt and worthlessness" by the self-appointed leaders.

    Third:
    Trim away all the frills, and a hypocrite is a person who thought they wouldn't get busted being a hypocrite. THAT'S why they say the things they do. I'll take an honest cur over a liar any day.

    word ver: "magina"

    too close for comfort there, eh, george?

    ReplyDelete
  133. By my own admission, yes, I'm a hypochrist and I need prayerful support to help me along my way.
    -MI
    ------------
    Well, good admission, but that's not what you need.

    What you need is to learn how to ask yourself honest questions about anything, no subject off-limits. Your beliefs, especially.

    That's my opinion, of course. Take it for what it's worth to you, which probably isn't much coming from an unbeliever like me.

    ReplyDelete
  134. As I understand it, this is what Christians (Catholics in particular) believe (formalized as the Nicene Creed), as they have been made to recite during every Mass they attend:

    "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen.
    We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
    We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
    Amen."

    Or this Anglican version of the Apostles' Creed:

    "I BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty,
    Maker of heaven and earth:
    And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
    Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
    Born of the Virgin Mary,
    Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    Was crucified, dead, and buried:
    He descended into hell;
    The third day he rose again from the dead;
    He ascended into heaven,
    And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
    From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
    I believe in the Holy Ghost;
    The holy Catholic Church;
    The Communion of Saints;
    The Forgiveness of sins;
    The Resurrection of the body,
    And the Life everlasting.
    Amen."

    What a load of drivel!

    ReplyDelete
  135. Brian said,

    "...Fred Phelps couldn't have done the damage that George W. Bush did, for instance. He's too obviously evil to ever get elected to high office. But GWB was juuuuuussssst sane-looking enough to get in under the wire. He could fool just enough of the gullible voters who respond to Christian code-words."

    That, and Al Gore was just a little too "tree-huggery" and dorky for a lot of moderate republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Your criticism, viz. that Christians think too highly of themselves and of their righteousness, is regularly contradicted by the criticism that Christianity creates in people a chronic and morbid sense of guilt and worthlessness."
    ----------------
    The guilt is more cultural. They always talk about it. They use it on their children to get them to behave, a terrible parenting style. While they feel guilty about various things, it's never what they should be feeling guilty about. They feel guilty for having sexual (or God forbid, HOMOsexual!) thoughts, for instance. But not for disenfranchising others, or being racists, or being greedy, or lying. It's selective guilt. The egotism comes in because while they are programmed to 'be humble' and 'act humble' they don't even know what that means, so while they will not actually claim that they are perfect, or that they are always right, they can have that cake and eat it too, because they can and do claim that while they're not perfect, their God is, and they're just repeating 'His words' which are after all flawless and perfect. So they are right and perfect anyhow, always right, because they have joined the 'right' team. The morbid guilt makes them feel pleasantly and 'appropriately' worthless befor the Lord, and then the egotism makes them feel superior to anyone else that isn't on the team. They're only worthless compared to God; they're clearly superior to any other mere men, after all. God told them so, so they are absolutely positive of it.

    ReplyDelete
  137. That, and Al Gore was just a little too "tree-huggery" and dorky for a lot of moderate republicans.
    -------------
    Well, he's dorky but compared to Mitt Romney he's the Fonz.

    The 'dorky' thing is more conditioning based in christian thought. Since 'asking too many questions' is seen as somehow wrong and even evil, it's only a small step further to see all honest inquiry, all skepticism, all well-thought-out argumentation, basically all the hallmarks of real intelligence as stupid somehow. Republican Christian influence over many years made "smart" go out of style in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Just sayin' is all...
    ----------
    Oh, me too. I agree, he's terribly dorky, even to a lefty like me.

    ReplyDelete
  139. And that time he frenched Tipper...

    Horrifying.

    ReplyDelete
  140. I do believe that MI backed you into a corner, albeit unwittingly, by asking you for your forgiveness. Either way you answer, you'll come off as 1) a hypochrist and 2)a hypocrite.
    That's a pretty uncomfortable spot to be in. Don't worry about it, it doesn't sound like she'll stick around long enough for your answer.
    LOL!
    Take away all the frills and then YOU got exposed! Pretty ironic!

    ReplyDelete
  141. George, I do believe that you're most likely MI posting under another name.
    Because you definitely have her brand of schizoid nuttiness.

    I accepted her apology, thinking that she'd leave me alone if I did, which was stupid of me, so when she started sending me personal emails not relating to the blog, cute/funny pictures etc, I had to inform her that I no londer wished to hear from her. She has a weird crush on me, like a Glen Close type of thing. Or maybe it's all fake just to screw with me. She creeps me out.

    And your comment about me accepting her apology (or not) and thus being 'revealed' to be a hypocrite myself, made no sense. Seriously, it just made no sense.
    By definition I cannot by a hypochrist because I am not a christian, so that was apparently you saying 'am not, you are!' and nothing more. And even the hypocrite part... where have I been hypocritical in any way? I accepted her apology. But she insisted on continuing to act as if we were close friends somehow when I've made it clear that I do not even trust her. So I told her to please not contact me or post anymore. No hypocrisy there.

    Poor, senseless George. What is your problem, I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
  142. Is George MI? WTF is he/she talking about???

    ReplyDelete
  143. Seems possible Ryan. Even likely when you read 'his' last post to me above. Certainly seemed like MI pretending again.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Word verification, "hydro"

    That's close to Hydra, as in the nine headed monster.

    If memory serves me, cut one head off and two grow back(or is it three?)

    I think you may have a Hydra in your midst....

    ReplyDelete
  145. Bri, allow for a tangent?

    The more I think about it, the easier the cliche comes.

    'Man's inhumanity to man.'

    We can manipulate the very essence of matter but we can't stop hurting each other. How incredibly stupid.

    I think I protect a certain innocence about myself, the belief that awareness of larger ideas and their forums help keep us in a necessary flux.

    Hopefully the flux will allow us to become more compassionate on the whole. I know that's naive, nevertheless...

    ReplyDelete
  146. Oneblood, I like the way you think. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  147. "And that time he frenched Tipper...

    Horrifying."

    Indeed. Watch the clip and you'll see her stiffen up when he grabs her, as if she's saying under her breath,

    "What the FUCK are you doing?!?!?!"

    ReplyDelete
  148. What kind of a name is "Tipper" anyhow?

    She plays pranks on cows?

    ReplyDelete
  149. I'm not necessarily glad you asked because I have a default pop-culture curiosity. I'm trying to rid myself of it.

    Here's the Tipper explanation

    #@&$!*%.

    ReplyDelete
  150. I would just like to use this forum to proclaim my innocence with the current hullabaloo surrounding the arrests of some rabbis.

    I'm a pimp, not a thief.

    Judge you!

    ReplyDelete
  151. One for the files...

    http://news.aol.com/article/alamo-guilty-of-sex-crimes/566176

    ReplyDelete
  152. Another Pastor Pederaster... Lovely.

    Put a shallow egotist in a position of power over others, and this is what happens, among other things, none of which are good.

    ReplyDelete
  153. I would just like to use this forum to proclaim my innocence with the current hullabaloo surrounding the arrests of some rabbis.
    ---------------
    Of course you would. Since you're no doubt guilty as gehenna, you'll take any opportunity now to proclaim your innocence. You and Dick Cheney... Like bookends, I tell you!

    ReplyDelete
  154. "Parve" is my word verification.

    I knew the Lord was on my side.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Yeah, but parve isn't kosher. And neither are you.

    ReplyDelete
  156. But it means I'm beyond clean and unclean.

    Kiss my touche!

    ReplyDelete
  157. I'll kiss your touche if you stroke my riposte...

    ReplyDelete
  158. I heard all about your riposte from St. Agnes.

    You realize if you had some manners and cracked 500 grand each year the other saints wouldn't talk about you behind your back.

    Judge you!

    ReplyDelete
  159. St Brian The Jealous Sez: Okay, now I'm jealous. My wife and I want to go there badly. But with the new bebe it'll be a while.

    TB Sez: Go, and take your wife on the canal cruise at dusk. Quite possibly the most romatic thing I have ever done.

    StB Sez more: You lucky dog. Amsterdam. What's it like in stoner heaven? Find any fluffy golden stuff?

    TB the straitedge Sez: Get this. Once we wondred through the "coffeehouses" and the redlight district, bought the souveneirs, etc, we spend way more time in Musieums and gardens. Beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
  160. I heard all about your riposte from St. Agnes.
    ---------------------
    She's a slutty little lamb, as it turns out.

    At least she lives up to the promise:
    "Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, grant us a piece..."

    Oh, and that's not the reason the other saints laugh about me. It's because all the other saints are unfortunately christians. So they can't avoid their own moral failings even as they preach to others about theirs. It's due to that morality based in fear thing they've got going for them. Turns out that only creates an illusion of morality. So they can't help themselves in thinking me inferior, not even knowing what morality really is and all. But I forgive them their egotistical shallowness, which is why I'm the saintliest of the saints of course.
    Sanctify me, beeyotch.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Since when are the other saints Christians?

    And perhaps I was a little presumptuous. What I really think you need is your own beer.

    St. Brian's Pale Ale, Lager, and Stout. I of course own the name, but am willing to give you a hefty cut because like I said, "I'm a pimp not a thief."

    ReplyDelete
  162. Since when are the other saints Christians?
    ------------
    Well, in name only. Like most Christians. You know.

    And it has to be Saint Brian's Godless Ale etc, or I'm not signin nuthin.

    And you pharisees are always willing to give the gentiles a hefty cut... right across the prepuce. Well, I'll have you know that my riposte has already been abbreviated, and it's still impressive. In my case they has to remove a fiveskin, it was so huge.

    ReplyDelete
  163. There goes Brian talking all creepy like. And with a guy. Who knew?

    ReplyDelete
  164. Yes Observant, it's called 'being secure in your sexuality.'

    You wouldn't know anything about it, so don't worry. You live in fear of everything you weren't programmed to think is okay.
    You live in fear of the gay, like it's contageous. I do not. You are a child. I grew up. It happens. But only if you don't believe in a religion apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  165. You're obviously not that secure in your sexuality if you don't allow a man in the bedroom to satisfy your wife while you're getting satisfied by another woman right in front of her.
    Don't be so sure that in such an unfair setting that she wouldn't secretly be looking for her fair share elsewhere.
    But, Brian, it goes against your being creeped out by others when you sit here on your own blog and do the very same thing by going on and on about your private parts. And, especially when it's with a guy. That's reeeaaallly creepy.
    Or, maybe it would seem that you're psyching yourself for the very first guy ever to come in to your bedroom? Lol!

    ReplyDelete
  166. "Observant said...
    You're obviously not that secure in your sexuality if you don't allow a man in the bedroom to satisfy your wife while you're getting satisfied by another woman right in front of her."

    Observant or MI???? The latter methinks!

    ReplyDelete
  167. Harv,

    Methinks you have a point.

    ReplyDelete
  168. MI did do one thing. She/he got me interested in the old DD blog for a couple minutes.

    It was nice to see familiar faces :-)

    ReplyDelete
  169. You're obviously not that secure in your sexuality if you don't allow a man in the bedroom to satisfy your wife while you're getting satisfied by another woman right in front of her.
    Don't be so sure that in such an unfair setting that she wouldn't secretly be looking for her fair share elsewhere.
    But, Brian, it goes against your being creeped out by others when you sit here on your own blog and do the very same thing by going on and on about your private parts. And, especially when it's with a guy. That's reeeaaallly creepy.
    ---------------
    Okay MI...
    It's called "humor." And because I am secure in my sexuality and you clearly are not, it looks wrong and 'creepy' to you. When I joke with Harry C. Pharisee or others and use sexual innuendo, it's harmless and he and I both know it is. When you tried it, you couldn't figure out how to make it sound harmless and not creepy. That is because you do not understand irony and sarcasm, so you just threw sexual comments out there in an awkward manner.

    Not my problem. Grow up.

    Oh, and 'creepy.' You called me 'creepy.' Several times.

    Shit, what a giveaway. You're using my exact word for you, what I called you, against me. Too funny. Are you twelve?

    ReplyDelete
  170. MIIIIIIIIIIIIII...

    Busted in the blogs...

    Busterinoooooo...

    ReplyDelete
  171. Somebody hijacked my name.
    This is my first time here on Hypochrist.

    I will comment later on your subject Brian.
    I don't have time right now...

    ReplyDelete
  172. We thought as much, Observant.

    Glad to have the real you here.

    MI, shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Tbrough, I admit that I am jealous. But not in a Yaweh sort of way. I don't smite when I'm jealous.

    Hey, I have a question. You've read this Hypochrist post I assume. And you are (gasp!) a 'nonheterosexual' individual, I believe.

    How does it affect you? Because I can only try to imagine. I mean the judgementalism, the shallowness, the lies and deceptions, the *unbelievable* hypocrisy of a Larry Craig or a Ted Haggard, all in the 'name of good,' all in the name of moral superiority due merely to what basically amounts to a club membership? (In the God Club)
    It pisses me off enough for it to worry me about my own inner balance. I don't like getting angry at people, but the sheer stupidity gets to me sometime. How does one deal with it as well as you seem to when one is more directly and personally involved in what their smear campaign is targeting? I mean, if it's pissing me off it's got to be getting to you, no?

    ReplyDelete
  174. Word verification:

    tedurbac

    I haven't a clue what that means, but it looks good.


    Wow MI, WTF???
    Like that word, tedurbac, I haven't a clue as to what the heck you mean here. But don't get all excited, because unlike the word, nothng you've written lately looks good .

    ReplyDelete
  175. Brian, are you taking up Pliny's challenge?

    ReplyDelete
  176. Oneblood, I went to Pliny's place and answered there, so I'll re-post it here as well.

    The challenge of course was to argue the opposite position.

    My response:

    If I wish to merely be the best arguer that I can be then this challenge makes sense of a sort. Practice the other side's position.

    But I argue from the heart. I feel what I am saying. It has emotional importance to me.
    So to practice the opposite makes no sense. Unless I want to be like Eric or Renzo or Ray "Two Truths."

    For me the ONLY issue is christianity and how it is utterly wrong and also how it induces stupidity. Since it truly is and does, then even to practice it as an argument might lower my IQ.

    I absolutely refuse to argue that it doesn't. Because it does.

    I already had that argument with myself years ago anyhow. I lost it then. I was arguing back then that it couldn't induce stupidity like a mental virus, since it's supposed to be a force for good in the world, it's supposed to be 'godly' and a force for love and understanding. I was wrong. It does. Imagine my surprise.

    And I always ask myself if I might be wrong, in everything that I do. So I ask myself if I could be wrong in this too.

    Nope, I'm right. It really does make you stupid. The proof is everywhere.

    So I won't be taking the pliny challenge, sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  177. word verification = "tronizer"

    That was the device that disassembled Jeff Bridges' molecules and sent them into the game grid...

    ReplyDelete
  178. I understand, I don't think you had to choose religion though.

    Pliny's 'challenge' had to do with Complementary and Alternative Medicine. I don't think he's going to go with arguing for prayer but he might add that into the mix.

    What I mean is, as an agmystic/atheist what have you, Pliny knows that prayer has a biochemical effect and can alleviate psychological stress etc. But just like you, he knows what deleterious effect 'belief in prayer can have.' So in his mind he could find a logical avenue for arguing both sides.

    The issue is obviously not absolutist as most issues aren't but I don't think he would be being untrue to his full beliefs necessarily.

    I do see your point however.

    You could've picked up the pboy gauntlet about determinism :-D

    Nevertheless, have a good night Bri.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Man, I'm tired. Apologies for the phrasing.

    ReplyDelete
  180. "But I argue from the heart. I feel what I am saying. It has emotional importance to me.
    So to practice the opposite makes no sense. Unless I want to be like Eric or Renzo or Ray "Two Truths.""

    Hmm, how could someone who claims to be so concerned with rationality and evidence conclude that I don't believe the positions I defend without any evidence whatsoever that I'm being duplicitous? Check any of the blogs I comment on: Pharyngula, Debunking Christianity, Ed Feser, Dangerous Idea, Just Thomism, Stephen Law, Common Sense Atheism, etc. and you'll see that my positions are quite consistent. If I'm just challenging myself, and trying to develop my debating skills, then why don't I ever defend atheism or skepticism?

    ReplyDelete
  181. I'm sorry Eric. I mean, I do like you because you're brilliant, but you don't really think that I thought that you were truthful, did you? I mean, you believe in your religion (I assume, can't even be sure about that with you my friend) but you'll stretch and distort truth to the breaking point and beyond to prove your point, which to me is, well, pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Maybe you don't know that you're doing it. I guess if you really believe in everything you argue for, it's possible that you've been able to twist logic and reality around to the point where even you can't recognize it anymore and so have convinced yourself that you do not lie and that it is all real, all your beliefs are real. But it's still lies to me, just really, really good ones. I mean, dude, I used to sell cars for my uncle's dealership. I know BS when I hears it. Even really polished BS. If you're not aware that you're doing it, then you've done it to yourself I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  183. I have a theory about apologists. Like D'Souza for example.

    They are intelligent people that have realized that to be one of the few intelligent people arguing on the side of the ignorant is to be a big fish in a very small pond. And that idea appeals to them very much.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Seeing as someone has hijacked my MI handle on the blog, I decided to check in here.
    And, sure enough, someone's doing it here as well.
    Whomever is doing it- know this:
    it is not my position to have anyone in the bedroom outside of husband and wife.
    Though, in Brian's case; what's good for the goose oughta be good for the gander. But it's not.
    Not my problem.
    I'm off the blog and I'm off this blog.
    Keep using my handle if you, whoever you are-if you get your jollies. How juvenile.
    I'm done.
    Been away for 10 days and going away again in a few weeks.
    I'm enjoying my Summer! I even went on my very first roller coasters with my boys at Hershey Park! (with the aid of some "liquid courage" ;)
    And, then 3 more weeks in the Fall. Woo-hoo! Life is good ;)
    Uh, for me, atleast.....
    Bye. God bless us all. Amen.
    The MI of the red hair, Catholic, homeschooling kind.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Pathetic attempt at a cover-up, MI. It was clearly you all along.

    You're one sad case. Seek help.

    ReplyDelete
  186. I no longer care what you think.
    Unlike you, my husband, a physician, actually works for a living and gets 8 (count 'em) weeks off a year. 6 of which we travel to places like Myrtle Beach, Williamsburg Va, Massanutten, The Poconos and Hershey Pa. And, unlike you; he doesn't need to bring another woman into the bedroom to show me he's the man.
    You asked for it.
    Ba-bye.
    PS. Someone's tricking you. It ain't me. Someone else who's got nothing better (obviously to do) when I've just gotten back into town, you idiot.
    You can make silly comments about believers all you want. I'm done with the infantile, circular, empty conversations.
    From here on out if MI posts....see if I care.

    ReplyDelete
  187. From pathetic to even more pathetic.

    I wonder how your physician husband would feel if he knew that you managed to make an atheist uncomfortable online with your sexual innuendos and inept hints.

    I almost wish I had his email address.

    :-)

    If he even exists of course. With you nothing is certain. Your word is worthless, your integrity nonexistant, and your honor a sham. You're a great case study in how Christianity fucks up the mind. For that and that alone, I appreciate you.

    ReplyDelete
  188. From here on out if MI posts....see if I care.
    --------
    So you're giving yourself licence to be even crazier in the future?

    Cool. Maybe you can break a Guinness Record for crazy or something. To which one of you does Guinness send the award?

    ReplyDelete
  189. "My name is Legion, that's my name
    I am many, all the same
    I'm the hydra Jason slew
    Cut off one head, out pops two
    I am the One that you despise
    In all my thoughts and words are lies
    I love conflict, yes I do
    But I thrive on confusion too
    I've many names upon my shelf
    So I can talk amongst myself
    And act as if I disagree
    With someone else, but both are me
    This game I play is really great
    To play both sides of each debate
    The more confusion I create
    The more I need to masturbate..."
    -StBtG

    ReplyDelete
  190. Be good and stay good. I sure hope that Mary's doing well. Remember, she's not supposed to be driving or going up and down stairs more than once/twice a day.
    Don't worry about any stuff. Just seek Peace and the Reality of your destiny and don't sweat the small stuff. Your wife and son deserve your time; not the bloggers. They know you hate God and Religion. Keeping it going, stirring it up only detracts, for you, where you're supposed to be in your journey towards your destiny. Nobody else matters. Remember that. And when you keep going at people like Botts, it's redundant and it's not furthering your journey and it's not furthering botts' journey either. See what I mean? All that hate, all that verbally beating up of believers and making fun, calling names and laughing about it all---it's just a non-productive way to vent and waste others' time as well as your own. For heaven sake, enjoy your family and friends and loved ones!
    Please be happy. Please be fulfilled and please don't sweat the stupid small stuff. Carpe' Diem! And, let the rest GO!
    All the best to you.
    Please take care.
    Moving on to better things; just like you (hopefully) are.......

    ReplyDelete