Hypocrisy

Comprehending laws and contracts is impossible, unless we first learn the meaning of the words and phrases they contain.

Moderator: notmartha

Post Reply
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Hypocrisy

Post by Firestarter » Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:16 pm

I’ve looked for a thread on “hypocrisy” in the “Terms of art” section of this forum and there isn’t one yet!
I won’t even try to do a similar post as Notmartha makes but, besides the quotes from the Bible, I will start by trying to explain my view on religion.


When I look at religion, I’m not very interested in:
Who or what created our world and what happens to us when we die.
And aspects of ritual or ceremony, including clothes, should have nothing to do with religion.

In my opinion the most important aspect a religion could “teach” us are morals.
A problem with morals is that people often use these to condemn other, while for some reason the same people are more lenient on themselves.

I think that one of biggest problems in our world is hypocrisy (of course very political correct!).
The following are my favourite quotes from the Bible and deal with “hypocrites” and “hypocrisy”. I have the impression that our current day words “hypocrites” and “hypocrisy” are more narrow than what is described in the following parts of the New Testament.


Matthew 23:14-33
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?


Matthew 6:1-6
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.


Matthew 15:7-11
Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.


Luke 6:41-45
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Hypocrisy

Post by notmartha » Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:59 am

Hypocrite / Hypocrisy /Hypocritical

See also FEIGN, PERSON

BIBLE

Hypocrite in OT of KJV.pdf
(30.66 KiB) Downloaded 44 times
Hypocrite in NT of KJV.pdf
(35.94 KiB) Downloaded 33 times

Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1891), vol. I, p. 150.
Hypocrites (ὑποκριταί)
From ὑποκρίνω, to separate gradually; so of separating the truth from a mass of falsehood, and thence to subject to inquiry, and, as a result of this, to expound or interpret what is elicited. Then, to reply to inquiry, and so to answer on the stage, to speak in dialogue, to act. From this the transition is easy to assuming, feigning, playing a part. The hypocrite is, therefore, etymologically, an actor.
Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. William Edwy Vine,
5272. HUPOKRISIS. Hypocrisy. Primarily denotes 'a reply, an answer' (akin to hupokrinomai, 'to answer'); then, 'play-acting,' as the actors spoke in dialogue; hence, 'pretence, hypocrisy'; it is translated 'hypocrisy' in Matt. 23:28; Mark 12:15; Luke 12:1; 1 Tim. 4:2; the plural in 1 Pet. 2:1. For Gal. 2:13 and anupokritos, "without hypocrisy," in Jas. 3:17, see DISSIMULATION."
5273 HUPOKRITES. Hypocrite. Corresponding to the above, primarily denotes 'one who answers'; then, 'a stage-actor'; it was a custom for Greek and Roman actors to speak in large masks with mechanical devices for augmenting the force of the voice; hence the word became used metaphorically of 'a dissembler, a hypocrite.' It is found only in the Synoptists, and always used by the Lord, fifteen times in Matthew; elsewhere, Mark 7:6; Luke 6:42; 11:44 (in some mss.); 12:56; 13:15
Easton's Bible Dictionary, Matthew George Easton, 1897
Hypocrite
One who puts on a mask and feigns himself to be what he is not; a dissembler in religion. Our Lord severely rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy (Mat 6:2, 5, 16). "The hypocrite's hope shall perish" (Job 8:13). The Hebrew word here rendered "hypocrite" rather means the "godless" or "profane," as it is rendered in Jer 23:11, i.e., polluted with crimes.
The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, A Sermon by John Witherspoon
Many from a real or pretended fear of the imputation of hypocrisy, banish from their conversation and carriage every appearance of respect and submission to the Living God. What a weakness and meanness of spirit does it discover for a man to be ashamed in the presence of his fellow sinners, to profess that reverence to Almighty God which he inwardly feels? The truth is, he makes himself truly liable to the accusation which he means to avoid. It is as genuine and perhaps a more culpable hypocrisy to appear to have less religion than you really have, than to appear to have more. This false shame is a more extensive evil than is commonly apprehended. We contribute constantly, though insensibly, to form each others character and manners; and therefore, the usefulness of a strictly holy and conscientious deportment is not confined to the possessor, but spreads its happy influence to all that are within its reach. I need scarcely add, that in proportion as men are distinguished by understanding, literature, age, rank, office, wealth, or any other circumstance, their example will be useful on the one hand, or pernicious on the other.
Matthew Henry's Commentary On the Whole Bible, (1706) Vol. 5, pp.65 and 66.
"We must take heed of hypocrisy and worldlymindedness in choosing the master we serve. v. 24. No man can serve two masters. Serving two masters is contrary to the single eye; for the eye will be to the master's hand. Ps. 123:1, 2. Our Lord Jesus here exposes the cheat which those put upon their own souls, who think to divide between God and the world, to have a treasure on earth, and a treasure in Heaven too, to please God and please men too. Why not? says the hypocrite; it is good to have two strings to one's bow. They hope to make their religion serve their secular interest, and so turn to account both ways. The pretending mother was for dividing the child; the Samaritans will compound between God and idols. No, says Christ, this will not do; it is but a supposition that gain is godliness, 1 Tim. 6:5.
Rev. Jeremy Taylor (1647)
"Force in matters of opinion can do no good, but is very apt to do hurt; for no man can change his opinion when he will, or be satisfied in his reason that his opinion is false because discountenanced. If a man could change his opinion when he lists, he might cure many inconveniences of his life: all his fears and his sorrows would soon disband, if he would but alter his opinion, whereby he is persuaded that such an accident that afflicts him is an evil, and such an object formidable; let him but believe himself impregnable, or that he receives a benefit when he is plundered, disgraced, imprisoned, condemned, and afflicted, neither his sleeps need to be disturbed, nor his quietness discomposed. But if a man cannot change his opinion when he lists, nor ever does heartily or resolutely but when he cannot do otherwise, then to use force may make him an hypocrite but never to be right believer; and so, instead of erecting a trophy to God and true religion, we build a monument for the devil. "
Herald of Gospel Liberty, Elias Smith, January 19, 1810
"As truth is no private man's property, and all Christians are under obligations to propagate it; I do also declare that every Christian has a right to publish and vindicate what he believes is contained in the Scriptures; to speak and write against all corruption of the word, either in doctrine or practice; and to expose the errors of good men, and the wickedness, oppression, and hypocrisy of ungodly men; that every Christian has not only a right, but is commanded to separate from such professors whose doctrine and worship are contrary to what he finds recorded in the Scriptures; and that he has a right to enjoy without disturbance, oppression, or disgrace, or any kind of punishment, civil or ecclesiastical, the liberty of serving God, with any other company of Christians, as he shall judge most expedient and useful to him."
DEFINITIONS

Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828
HYP'OCRITE, noun
1. One who feigns to be what he is not; one who has the form of godliness without the power, or who assumes an appearance of piety and virtue, when he is destitute of true religion.
And the hypocrite's hope shall perish. Job 8:1.
2. A dissembler; one who assumes a false appearance.
Fair hypocrite you seek to cheat in vain.
HYPOC'RISY, noun [Latin hypocrisis; Gr. simulation; to feign; to separate, discern or judge.]
1. Simulation; a feigning to be what one is not; or dissimulation, a concealment of one's real character or motives. More generally, hypocrisy is simulation, or the assuming of a false appearance of virtue or religion; a deceitful show of a good character, in morals or religion; a counterfeiting of religion.
Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy Luke 12:1.
2. Simulation; deceitful appearance; false pretence.
Hypocrisy is the necessary burden of villainy.
The Century Dictionary, an Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Language, 1895
hypocrite (hip'o-krit), n.

L., a mimic who accompanied the delivery of an actor by gestures;

One who assumes a false appearance; one who feigns to be what he is not, or to feel or believe what he does not actually feel or believe; especially, a false pretender to virtue or piety.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 1919
hypo'crisy, n.

Simulation of virtue or goodness ; dissimulation, pretence, [f. OF ypocrisie f. eccl. L f. Gk hupokrisis lit. acting of a part. f. hupokrinomai (hupo- hypo- + krino decide, judge)]
hypocrite, n.

Person guilty of hypocrisy; dissembler, pretender. So hypocritiCAL a.,
Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary, 1977
Hypocrisy

The pretense of having feelings or characteristics one does not possess; especially, the deceitful assumption of praiseworthy qualities; insincerity.
Hypocrite

One who practices hypocrisy.
MISCELLANEOUS CITATIONS

Stillingfleet, Sermons, II.i.
The fawning, sneaking, and flattering hypocrite, that will do or be any thing for his own advantage, is despised by those he courts, hated by good men, and at last tormented by his own conscience.
Milton –
And in matters of Religion there is not any thing more intolerable then a learned foole, or a learned Hypocrite.
"The Tragic Era: The Revolution After Lincoln," Claude G. Bowers, 1929
"Never have American public men in responsible positions, directing the destiny of the Nation, been so brutal, hypocritical, and corrupt. The Constitution was treated as a door mat on which politicians and army officers wiped their feet after wading in the muck. Never has the Supreme Court been treated with such ineffable contempt, and never has that tribunal so often cringed before the clamor of the mob."
Mansfield, Chamberlain v. Evans (1767), 16 Parl.Hist 313, 325.
"Conscience is not controlable by human laws, nor amenable to human tribunals. Persecution, or attempts to force consciences, will never produce conviction; and are only calculated to make hypocrites, or martyrs"
Rowland Hill, Aug. 30, 1775.
"If a person was to attend the levee of an earthly prince every court day, and pay his obeisance punctually and respectfully, but at other times speak and act in opposition to his sovereign, the king would justly deem such a one a hypocrite and an enemy. Nor will a solemn and stated attendance on the means of grace in the house of God prove us to be God's children and friends if we confine our religion to the church walls, and do not devote our lips and lives to the glory of that Saviour we profess to love."
Thomas Jefferson from Notes on Virginia, 1784.
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free inquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free inquiry been indulged at the era of the Reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potato as an article of food. Government is just as infallible, too, when it fixed systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the Inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error, however, at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices. In fact, the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in, and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a censor morum over such other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites, to support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves. But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order; or if a sect arises, whose tenets should subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery that the way to silence religious disputes is to take no notice of them."
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Hypocrisy

Post by notmartha » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:17 am

Firestarter wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:16 pm

In my opinion the most important aspect a religion could “teach” us are morals.
A problem with morals is that people often use these to condemn other, while for some reason the same people are more lenient on themselves..
The problem with "morals" is that they are subjective. There does not seem to be a standard, and "morals" change as customs and manners change. Natural Law, however, never changes, and should be at the forefront of all religious teachings.
Firestarter wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:16 pm
I think that one of biggest problems in our world is hypocrisy (of course very political correct!).
The following are my favourite quotes from the Bible and deal with “hypocrites” and “hypocrisy”. I have the impression that our current day words “hypocrites” and “hypocrisy” are more narrow than what is described in the following parts of the New Testament..
Yes, hypocrisy is a large problem in the world. A bigger problem, in my opinion, is people's general inability to discern truth from fiction and identify the hypocrites. As shown in the definitions above, a hypocrite is an actor, a deceiver. People want to be deceived. And they have no standard for truth or normalcy.

See “What is Normal?” https://benwilliamslibrary.com/pdfs/st18-5&6.pdf

Until people embrace a standard of right and wrong, truth and fallacy, light and dark, there will be no shortage of hypocrites.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Hypocrisy

Post by Firestarter » Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:26 pm

notmartha wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:17 am
The problem with "morals" is that they are subjective. There does not seem to be a standard, and "morals" change as customs and manners change. Natural Law, however, never changes, and should be at the forefront of all religious teachings.
notmartha wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:17 am
See “What is Normal?” https://benwilliamslibrary.com/pdfs/st18-5&6.pdf

Until people embrace a standard of right and wrong, truth and fallacy, light and dark, there will be no shortage of hypocrites.
We are brainwashed into some sort of "normality" that makes us easier to control. I sometimes see groups of kids that look even more similar than adults, walking around in the the same fashion, listening to the same music, with the same hobbies, and the same cell phone.

Our "morals" are actually a big part of our brainwashing. Our movies and sitcoms (besides schools and parents) "teach" us that good people don't swear, are ambitious, always positive, and trust the authorities. And that when we work hard, as a good slave, we will be rewarded (by the slave drivers). Or by the "eternal" life after death (in heaven).
It would be better if the morals are "subjective" (instead of shoved down our throats) as this would in the end make our "morals" better.
In a way our "normality" is completely linked to our "morals".

I've read Taoist scriptures (in which the supreme force is called "Tao") that describe our "morals" as a major problem. Superficially Confucianism (another Chinese religion/philosophy) appears similar to Taoism, but in many ways it's the exact opposite, using morals to control the population.
I think that there (hypothetically) could be such a thing as "good" morals though.

See from chapter 38 of the Tao Te Ching:
When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go.
http://thetaoteching.com/taoteching38.html


Also see Chapter 18 from (another translation of) the Tao Te Ching:
When the great Reason is obliterated, we have benevolence and justice.
Prudence and circumspection appear, and we have much hypocrisy.

When family relations no longer harmonize, we have filial piety and paternal devotion.
When the country and the clans decay through disorder, we have loyalty and allegiance.
https://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing18.php

notmartha wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:17 am
Yes, hypocrisy is a large problem in the world. A bigger problem, in my opinion, is people's general inability to discern truth from fiction and identify the hypocrites. As shown in the definitions above, a hypocrite is an actor, a deceiver. People want to be deceived. And they have no standard for truth or normalcy.
There are different ways to looks at this.

If we - the slaves - weren't so hypocritical it wouldn't be so easy to control us with lies. People seem to rather believe in fairy tales than seeing the awful truth. I regularly see stories by "Christians", who tell others to believe that God will make "good" triumph over "evil" (as predicted in Revelations?).
Often the people posting this nonsense are even more hypocritical than average.

So when you look at it this way it's our hypocrisy that makes us deceived by the lies.
But whan you continue reasoning like this, it's really also the hypocrites that brainwash us into "wanting" to be deceived.
So in the end my conclusion remains that "hypocrisy" is the biggest problem.

That's besides the ultimate question is human intrinsically "good" or "evil".
Are some people "good" but then made "evil" by brainwashing techniques?
Is somebody a "hypocrite" to think that he can "judge" others?

If I take Jesus's words on "hypocrisy" literal... Jesus himself "judged" others. So does this mean that according to Jesus's his own words he was a "hypocrite"?
Or shouldn't we "judge" Jesus on what he said but only on what he did?
Or was Jesus above the criteria to which "normal" people could be "judged" because he was THE Son of man :?:
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Hypocrisy

Post by notmartha » Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:13 am

In common usage, there seem to be two kinds of “hypocrites.”

1. There are those with good intentions who give good instruction, but, due to vices, don’t follow through themselves. Parents often find themselves in this category, when they tell their children not to indulge in too many sweets (as they have secret stashes themselves) or tell them to keep their rooms clean (while their own room is not the neatest.) These are the “do as I say, not as I do” hypocrites. These “hypocrisies,” like Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7, show no malice, and only directly harm the hypocrite. They do not harm the body or property of another and are not “judge able” offenses.

2. And there are those with criminal intentions, who give bad instruction, and put on an air of righteousness in order to defraud people into following those instructions. These hypocrites are malicious actors who will lie, cheat, steal, oppress, and even murder to get what they want, usually glory, power and/or money. These “hypocrisies,” like the ones Jesus spoke of in Matthew 23, are “judge able” offenses because they do hurt the body or property of another.

There also seems to be at least three common usages of the word “judgment.” See a more complete expounding of JUDGMENT here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1426

1. If we are looking at “judgment” as an operation of the mind, then people should not be stifled (by man) from judging what they will. We can surely agree that there is no need for thought police dictating what operations our minds can and can’t have. Our thoughts don’t injure anyone except possibly ourselves, so there is no offense, unless of course those thoughts are maliciously acted on. It is this type of judgment I believe Jesus talks about in Matthew 7:1-2 - “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

He follows this up with the “golden rule” in Matthew 7:12 – “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

He is not condemning judgment, per se, but saying there are societal consequences for rash judgment among brethren. You won’t like it when others judge rashly of you, so don’t do it to others.

2. If we are looking at “judgment” as earthly condemnation or punishment, then there must be a crime, which means there needs to be a victim. Anytime someone’s body or property is intentionally injured, there is a call for “judgment.” This is the “righteous judgment” that Jesus endorses: John 7:24 – “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” Without “judgment” there is lawlessness.

3. The third type of “judgment” is in regards to eternal punishment or “damnation.” You already indicated you’re not interested in what happens to people when they die, so there is no point in discussing this interpretation of “judgment.”

As far as good and evil...

Man came to the knowledge of good and evil when the serpent beguiled Eve into eating the fruit:

Genesis 3:1-5 - Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Hypocrites are still telling the same lie..."you will be as gods"...

It is a choice we must each individually make, to believe truth or lies, to be good or evil, to ignore or follow the laws written on our hearts. I do believe some people are made to do evil acts through mind control. God will sort it out.

Ecclesiastes 12:14 - For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Erasmus - The praise of folly

Post by Firestarter » Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:21 pm

notmartha wrote:
Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:13 am
There also seems to be at least three common usages of the word “judgment.” See a more complete expounding of JUDGMENT here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1426
I have a different interpretation.
My starting point is that most the people that judge others “suffer” from a superiority complex. For this reason I don´t even think about that there are different ways of judging others.
I’m not saying that your interpretation is wrong though, just different. I even agree that there are different ways of judging (some can even be called good!).

I can imagine that you also interpret the quoted verses in the Orginal Post different than me.
This nicely illustrates that one must also be careful in judging others because they don’t know the perspective and background of the person they are judging, and maybe that “objective morals” are an illusion?


There aren’t many Dutch books worth reading. Erasmus’ “The praise of folly” is one of the better philosophy books I´ve read. It’s a first person account of the much underestimated god “folly”...
Errasmus uses this construction to sarcastically ridicule human vanity, stupidity and selfishness (including hypocrisy).
The book got controversial and popular because Erasmus exposed the greed and corruption of the Christian clergymen. Erasmus was understandably expelled from his position as a priest.

Erasmus explains in his introduction that “moria” is really another name for “folly”.
Coincidentally “Moriah” is the land where Abraham went to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac to “God”; he only stops at the last moment when an angel tells him to “lay not thine hand upon the lad” (Genesis 22:1-13).


The following excerpts are relevant in the context of “hypocrisy”.
Be it as foolish as they would make it, so they confess it proper: and what can be more than that Folly be her own trumpet? For who can set me out better than myself, unless perhaps I could be better known to another than to myself? Though yet I think it somewhat more modest than the general practice of our nobles and wise men who, throwing away all shame, hire some flattering orator or lying poet from whose mouth they may hear their praises, that is to say, mere lies; and yet, composing themselves with a seeming modesty, spread out their peacock's plumes and erect their crests, while this impudent flatterer equals a man of nothing to the gods and proposes him as an absolute pattern of all virtue that's wholly a stranger to it, sets out a pitiful jay in other's feathers, washes the blackamoor white, and lastly swells a gnat to an elephant. In short, I will follow that old proverb that says, "He may lawfully praise himself that lives far from neighbors." Though, by the way, I cannot but wonder at the ingratitude, shall I say, or negligence of men who, notwithstanding they honor me in the first place and are willing enough to confess my bounty, yet not one of them for these so many ages has there been who in some thankful oration has set out the praises of Folly; when yet there has not wanted them whose elaborate endeavors have extolled tyrants, agues, flies, baldness, and such other pests of nature, to their own loss of both time and sleep.

(...)

For even the Stoics themselves that so severely cried down pleasure did but handsomely dissemble, and railed against it to the common people to no other end but that having discouraged them from it, they might the more plentifully enjoy it themselves. But tell me, by Jupiter, what part of man's life is that that is not sad, crabbed, unpleasant, insipid, troublesome, unless it be seasoned with pleasure, that is to say, folly? For the proof of which the never sufficiently praised Sophocles in that his happy elegy of us, "To know nothing is the only happiness," might be authority enough, but that I intend to take every particular by itself.

(...)

And first 'tis agreed of all hands that our passions belong to Folly; inasmuch as we judge a wise man from a fool by this, that the one is ordered by them, the other by reason; and therefore the Stoics remove from a wise man all disturbances of mind as so many diseases. But these passions do not only the office of a tutor to such as are making towards the port of wisdom, but are in every exercise of virtue as it were spurs and incentives, nay and encouragers to well doing: which though that great Stoic Seneca most strongly denies, and takes from a wise man all affections whatever, yet in doing that he leaves him not so much as a man but rather a new kind of god that was never yet nor ever like to be. Nay, to speak plainer, he sets up a stony semblance of a man, void of all sense and common feeling of humanity. And much good to them with this wise man of theirs; let them enjoy him to themselves, love him without competitors, and live with him in Plato's commonwealth, the country of ideas, or Tantalus' orchards. For who would not shun and startle at such a man, as at some unnatural accident or spirit? A man dead to all sense of nature and common affections, and no more moved with love or pity than if he were a flint or rock; whose censure nothing escapes; that commits no errors himself, but has a lynx's eyes upon others; measures everything by an exact line, and forgives nothing; pleases himself with himself only; the only rich, the only wise, the only free man, and only king; in brief, the only man that is everything, but in his own single judgment only; that cares not for the friendship of any man, being himself a friend to no man; makes no doubt to make the gods stoop to him, and condemns and laughs at the whole actions of our life?

(...)

Nor are princes by themselves in their manner of life, since popes, cardinals, and bishops have so diligently followed their steps that they've almost got the start of them. For if any of them would consider what their Albe should put them in mind of, to wit a blameless life; what is meant by their forked miters, whose each point is held in by the same knot, we'll suppose it a perfect knowledge of the Old and New Testaments; what those gloves on their hands, but a sincere administration of the Sacraments, and free from all touch of worldly business; what their crosier, but a careful looking after the flock committed to their charge; what the cross born before them, but victory over all earthly affections—these, I say, and many of the like kind should anyone truly consider, would he not live a sad and troublesome life? Whereas now they do well enough while they feed themselves only, and for the care of their flock either put it over to Christ or lay it all on their suffragans, as they call them, or some poor vicars. Nor do they so much as remember their name, or what the word bishop signifies, to wit, labor, care, and trouble. But in racking to gather money they truly act the part of bishops, and herein acquit themselves to be no blind seers.

In like manner cardinals, if they thought themselves the successors of the apostles, they would likewise imagine that the same things the other did are required of them, and that they are not lords but dispensers of spiritual things of which they must shortly give an exact account. But if they also would a little philosophize on their habit and think with themselves what's the meaning of their linen rochet, is it not a remarkable and singular integrity of life? What that inner purple; is it not an earnest and fervent love of God? Or what that outward, whose loose plaits and long train fall round his Reverence's mule and are large enough to cover a camel; is it not charity that spreads itself so wide to the succor of all men? that is, to instruct, exhort, comfort, reprehend, admonish, compose wars, resist wicked princes, and willingly expend not only their wealth but their very lives for the flock of Christ: though yet what need at all of wealth to them that supply the room of the poor apostles? These things, I say, did they but duly consider, they would not be so ambitious of that dignity; or, if they were, they would willingly leave it and live a laborious, careful life, such as was that of the ancient apostles.
Desiderius Erasmus - “The praise of folly” (1511): http://www.gutenberg.org/files/9371/9371-h/9371-h.htm
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Bono hypocrite

Post by Firestarter » Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:36 pm

I´ve learned a “new” word for a frauding hypocrite – humbug: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1566


I think that U2 made some great music in the 1980s, but this doesn’t mean that I’m a fan of the HYPOCRITE Bono. Another scumbag knighted by Queen Elizabeth, because he’s not British he’s no “Sir” though but can place “KBE” after his name...

In January 2012, Bono arrived in Mali on a private jet with his wife and daughters. Bono starred at a festival celebrating the “famous” Tuareg tribe. Bono jumped on stage yelling: “We are brothers here!” and “Music is stronger than war!”
The next morning, the Tuaregs took up arms against the regime. Three months later, Al Qaeda usurped the Tuareg rebellion, to rape women, chop off limbs and burn libraries with centuries-old books, which was a little “overlooked” in the western press.

Bono was contacted 6 months after his visit to Mali, with the question on why he kept quiet when he could make this humanitarian disaster a front page story.
His spokesperson replied: “Bono was on a private family vacation and One doesn’t get involved in politics”: https://nypost.com/2017/11/11/the-hypoc ... e-charity/
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Bob Geldof

Post by Firestarter » Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Maybe an even bigger hypocrite than Bono is Bob Geldof...

Do you remember Live Aid, when we were all so united in saving the world through music?
Live Aid brought in more than $100 million and in July 1986 was still raising funds through follow-ups like — Fashion Aid, School-Aid, OnLine Aid and Sport Aid. It got Bob Geldof a nice knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II, so he may place “KBE” after his name. It also made Bono and U2 into superstars...

In July 1986, the little known reporter Robert Keating exposed that the Live Aid millions were really supporting the genocide in Ethiopia! Keating discovered that the Ethiopian dictator, Mengistu, used the money from the west to buy weapons from the Soviets, giving him the largest, best equipped army in Africa so he could viciously crush the opposition.
Keating showed that Geldof was warned about Mengistu. According to Medicins Sans Frontiers, Geldof famously ignored the warnings and said: “I’ll shake hands with the Devil on my left and on my right to get to the people we are meant to help”.

Jason Clay, who studied the famine in Ethiopia explained:
People are dying because of their government. And what groups like Live Aid are doing is helping the government set up a system that is going to cause people to die for decades to come.
Claude Malhuret of Medicins sans Frontieres said:
Western governments and humanitarian groups like Live Aid are fueling an operation that will be described with hindsight in a few years time as one of the greatest slaughters in the history of the twentieth century.

The reality is that the massive amounts of deaths in Ethiopia wasn’t caused by nature but mostly by war. At the time Ethiopia was fighting 4 internal wars, the major fighting in the northern provinces of Tigre and Eritrea.
The Ethiopian government brutally forced mass resettlements of millions and bombings killed more Ethiopians than the famine ever did. The Ethiopian army systematically destroyed farmlands, killed oxen, and used napalm on the starving population.

US “help” was coordinated by the National Security Council. A secret White House report dated 5 May 1984, shows that the Reagan Administration knew of the “disaster situation” in Ethiopia, but chose to keep their hands off for political reasons.
The US government accused the Ethiopians of selling the little grain from the US to the Soviets to buy military supplies.

In 1985, hundreds of thousands of tons of food from Live Aid rotted on the docks beside the Red Sea. Little food and medicine left the port cities of Assab and Massawa, because priority was given to unloading military hardware.
The Band Aid Trust finally chartered ships to transport goods into Ethiopia, 19 voyages brought in more than 100,000 tons of food. But then the Ethiopian government confiscated tons of food to pay its army in grain or to trade for arms.

The food was also used to lure Ethiopians to resettlement camps, to be “relocated”. More than 600,000 victims were relocated this way, and some 100,000 died in the savage transport.
In the spring of 1986, 70,000 people were being moved each week. The resettlement program would move 33 million Ethiopians, more than three-quarters of the population, to state villages.

Bonnie Holcomb commented:
More lives can be saved by stopping aid.
Food has been given to Ethiopia for humanitarian purposes, but it has served as bait in a trap that is part of an ongoing program to restructure Ethiopia’s society.
https://www.spin.com/featured/live-aid- ... f-feature/
(archived here: http://archive.is/68riE)
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

His hypocriticalness – the Dalai Lama

Post by Firestarter » Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:50 pm

In 1944, when he was already chosen the Dalai Lama, aged 11, Nazi Party member and officer of Himmler’s SS, Heinrich Harrer, became his tutor. They remained friends until Harrer died in 2006.
Harrer wrote a book about his experiences with the Dalai Lama, and became famous because of the Hollywood film starring Brad Pitt.

See Heinrich Harrer to the left of Adolf Hitler.
Image

See the Dalai Lama, speaking to an adoring crowd with Swastika decorations in front of him.
Image

The Miguel Serrano that was born in Chile, was another Nazi friend of the Dalai Lama. Serrano has claimed that Hitler was the avatar of a Hindu god.
Serrano also served as the head of the National Socialist Party (Nazi Party) of Chile, and associated with the Nazi network of Otto Skorzeny. Serrano also presided over the funeral of SS officer Walter Rauff in Santiago, Chile.
Serrano was also close to the famous Swiss psychiatrist Carl G. Jung.

Serrano met the Dalai Lama when he was Chile’s ambassador to India.
See Miguel Serrano with his friend the Dalai Lama, Chile, 1992.
Image

In April 1999, the Dalai Lama along with Lady of the Garter Margaret Thatcher and former US President George H.W. Bush, successfully demanded that the British government wouldn’t extradite the former ruthless dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, to Spain but release him instead.

See in the left photo, the Dalai Lama with Pinochet and his good friend, the mass murderer Dr. Bruno Beger, an officer in the SS who was involved in the experiments at the Auschwitz concentration Camp.
On the right photo is the Dalai Lama with Shoko Asahara.
Image

Shoko Asahara headed the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan, which released sarin gas in the subway system of Tokyo in 1995, killing 12 and injuring dozens.
Asahara credited the Dalai Lama as his main Buddhist inspiration: https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2008 ... ai_lam.pdf
(archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/201804262227 ... ai_lam.pdf)


Other than we were made to believe, Tibet wasn’t really “independent” but a semi-autonomous province of China for more than a thousand years.
Until 1959, Tibet was ruled as a theocratic dictatorship, with over 90% of the population used as slaves by the Buddhist elite. Punishments for insulting the Dalai Lama included eye-gouging and tongue removal. Amputation of hands and feet were commonplace for even minor crimes.

Since 1959, the Dalai Lama has been financed by various Western intelligence services and a wide area of NGOs.
The controversial billionaire George Soros is a major financial contributor to the Dalai Lama.

The pro-Dalai Lama International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) was founded in Washington in 1988 and was funded by the NED since at least 1994.
Into the twenty-first century, through the CIA-front National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and other conduits, US Congress funded Tibetans in India with $2 million annually, with additional millions for “democracy activities” of the Tibetan exile community.

Melvyn, C. Goldstein described how the CIA paid the Dalai Lama a personal annual salary of $150,000: http://web.archive.org/web/201607042134 ... ntal-fraud)


The CIA also secretly trained Tibetan troops for almost 20 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program


Let’s not forget that the Dalai Lama was also funded by the Bronfman family, who invited him for an event of the sex cult NXIVM.
Firestarter wrote:
Sun May 13, 2018 3:23 pm
See the Dalai Lama on stage at the NXIVM event, with Sara Bronfman circled (I think her sister Clare is sitting to her left), Albany, New York.
Image
posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=5063
Post Reply