President of the Christian Action League, paying hookers!

[B. Max]

WTF are you talking about? You go off on a "Let he without sin cast the first stone" rant and I called you on it. I'm not a Christian so I can certainly call "hypocrite" when I see it. Religious leaders of all stripes are held to a higher standard as leaders of the church. When they screw up morally, they are in fact hypocrites. Pretty easy call.

What do you mean called me on it, you critisize what you don't understand. When Christ said let those without sin cast the first stone he was talking about hypocrites. But what you really don't understand is that God also said that no one is without sin, meaning that in his eyes no one is held to higher standard. So who are you to place yourself above others on moral issues and worse yet, God.

[Drea]

do you notice jazzer, that rather then discuss the topic at hand, and pursue an honest discussion with the FACTS, I stated , they lodge a number of personal attacks.

The signs of the weakness are obvious and blatant!

LOL Kuzadd.

I think I know why they do this. They learned it from their heroes, Coulter, Limbah, etal. When they cannot debate the issue (and when can they??) they resort to insulting the messenger. Typical and expected from the shrill right wing.

[margrace]

WTF are you talking about? You go off on a "Let he without sin cast the first stone" rant and I called you on it. I'm not a Christian so I can certainly call "hypocrite" when I see it. Religious leaders of all stripes are held to a higher standard as leaders of the church. When they screw up morally, they are in fact hypocrites. Pretty easy call.

What do you mean called me on it, you critisize what you don't understand. When Christ said let those without sin cast the first stone he was talking about hypocrites. But what you really don't understand is that God also said that no one is without sin, meaning that in his eyes no one is held to higher standard. So who are you to place yourself above others on moral issues and worse yet, God.

Oh come on "God said no one is without sin" when are you people going to really look at that Catholic Church control propoganda? God never said that, man did. God is much bigger than that, he gave you free choice so why would he accuse you of being born a sinner.

[jazzer]

WTF are you talking about? You go off on a "Let he without sin cast the first stone" rant and I called you on it. I'm not a Christian so I can certainly call "hypocrite" when I see it. Religious leaders of all stripes are held to a higher standard as leaders of the church. When they screw up morally, they are in fact hypocrites. Pretty easy call.

What do you mean called me on it, you critisize what you don't understand. When Christ said let those without sin cast the first stone he was talking about hypocrites. But what you really don't understand is that God also said that no one is without sin, meaning that in his eyes no one is held to higher standard. So who are you to place yourself above others on moral issues and worse yet, God.

So the Pope isn't held to a higher standard? Amazing? And oh, please quote where God him/her self said no one is without sin. You don't seem to understand I'm not a follower or a Christian, or any of the above. I am totally free to call hypocrisy without all the moral baggage.

[sharkman]

jazzer, one doesn't need to be not christian to call hypocrite, it only takes common sense.

One apparently has to be "christian" to be unable to see the hypocrisy.

Though the hypocrisy is obvious, in the actions of these religious leaders, or at least ,should be?

Religious leaders, are just that , leaders, and they preach , they are constantly preaching morality, appropriate behaviour,passing judgement, etc., and then they turn around and lie, cheat, commit adultery, steal, do drugs etc.,

It is hypocrisy through and through, perhaps some poster don't understand hypocrisy, what it means, what it is??

Hey kuzy, I am not saying this guy is not a hyopcrite. He is one. It seems though you are not here to do anything but smirk and scoff while pretending to want to discuss the issue. That's fine, but do you have any response to my above comment? I'll repeat it for you:

Funny you speak of the big picture, I was just thinking about it. The big picture is that for every Jim Baker there is 1000s of ministers who humbly go about their calling, being paid pretty much minimum wage in churches of under 100 members. They toil and bear the burdens of their congregation without complaint and get sick to their stomachs when a Jim Baker falls. These kind don't make the news, therefore people with a bias against all things God don't count them, only the christian commiting a crime.

You seem to be saying most religious leaders are hypocrites, are you?

[jazzer]

People make mistakes, even Christian leaders. What I can't stand is how they go in front of their congregation, usually after they're caught, and play on the "everyone is a sinner" line, and ask forgiveness. That's what keeps these buffoons in the limelight. And that's why they deserve the label hypocrite.

[sharkman]

In the last 20 years in my community, I know of 2 incidents where someone in christian leadership fell into sexual sin. Neither went in front of the congregation to use the every one is a sinner line. Neither one went in front of the congregation and asked for forgiveness. They lost their jobs, and their status as minister for a certain term. They also went into counselling.

I will repeat that the sensationalizing you see in the media when a Jimmmy Swaggart falls is not the norm. The norm is when they have to pick up the pieces of a shattered life and if they are willing, God heals them.

[B. Max]

So the Pope isn't held to a higher standard? Amazing? And oh, please quote where God him/her self said no one is without sin. You don't seem to understand I'm not a follower or a christian, or any of the above. I am totally free to call hypocrisy without all the moral baggage.

All men were created equal, and man was only created once, and as far as I know judged once, equally.

It was all decide long before you were born and doesn't matter if you are Christian or not. Even though Adam and Eve had no prior knowledge of good and evil they were punished for disobeying. They were not Christians and had no moral baggage but brought sin into the world and it was passed on.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

12 ¶ Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; Gen. 2.17 ; 3.6 and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

[jazzer]

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

12 ¶ Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; Gen. 2.17 ; 3.6 and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

But you forget. I don't believe in the creationist mythology. Therefore, for me, sin is non-existent. And God was talking to who specifically in these passages?

Edited July 25, 2007 by jazzer

[B. Max]

And God was talking to who specifically in these passages?

You're kidding, right.

[kuzadd]

Hey kuzy, I am not saying this guy is not a hyopcrite. He is one. It seems though you are not here to do anything but smirk and scoff while pretending to want to discuss the issue. That's fine, but do you have any response to my above comment? I'll repeat it for you:

You seem to be saying most religious leaders are hypocrites, are you?

no I am actually not saying that, I am saying I am of the opinion there are a disproportionate amount of them within the christian family.

I don't think it is sensationalism, I think, it is accurate, to say that.

Being a religious leaders is a "career" comparable to No other career.

These religious leaders are not only representative of their congregations , the church at large, and by extension, God on earth, there "flock" look to them for leadership, moral guidance and more.

People putting themselves, by choice in these positions, willingly accept, that 1: they will live a moral upstanding life 2: will be an example to the communities they LEAD.

In my own community, two example I know of publicly, who really nows what else has gone on?

1: priest having homosexual affair, with politician and stealing money for the church

2" priest having affair with young girl

both associated with the religion,church of my youth.

Now that is 1 church, in one city.

Thinking of all the scandals and the scale of them, worldwide, I am of the opinion, that chrisitanity has issues!

Edited July 25, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

All men were created equal, and man was only created once, and as far as I know judged once, equally.

YUP, I believe that, but, do you really????

I also don't need religion to tell me that.

That is correct, ethically, morally and scientifically.

[jazzer]

And God was talking to who specifically in these passages?

You're kidding, right.

Nope. Just answer the question.

[B. Max]

Nope. Just answer the question.

I would presume it was Moses. Genesis is the first book of Moses and the first book of Moses is the first book of the bible.

The reference is from Romans in the new testiment, and Romans is actually part of the book of John if I remember correctly.

[jefferiah]

The reference is from Romans in the new testiment, and Romans is actually part of the book of John if I remember correctly.

I think you are wrong there, B. Max. Romans is an epistle from Paul.

[B. Max]

The reference is from Romans in the new testiment, and Romans is actually part of the book of John if I remember correctly.

I think you are wrong there, B. Max. Romans is an epistle from Paul.

I could very well be. I wasn't sure.

[jefferiah]

I believe Acts is a follow up to Luke.

I think John was the latest gospel. The tradition is that John lived to be pretty old and was leader of the Church in Ephesus (don't quote me on that though). He was supposed to have written it when he was quite old. The interesting thing about John, is that I think they found a very early manuscript--- dated to the 1st Century I think.

Edited July 26, 2007 by jefferiah

[B. Max]

I believe Acts is a follow up to Luke.

I think John was the latest gospel. The tradition is that John lived to be pretty old and was leader of the Church in Ephesus (don't quote me on that though). He was supposed to have written it when he was quite old. The interesting thing about John, is that I think they found a very early manuscript--- dated to the 1st Century I think.

I thought it was part of the contents of a letter that John wrote to the Romans.