| Is a religious person that won't let his wife attend the same church as him a hypocrite? |
|
|
|
Asked 120 days ago
by Chipmonk  United States |
|
About
I'm short, cute, have four legs; my isn't Alvin and when I sing I don't sound like a tape recording played back at a faster speed (although *that* would be an improvement). :)
|
7 Points
|
Our former next-door neighbors were separated for about four months -- but they have been back together for nearly a year. After they got back together he would not allow his wife to go to the same church as him because his sister goes there and she hates his wife. Church is supposed to be a place of love and forgiveness (so many Christians preach), so isn't this fellow a really big hypocrite for being more concerned about what his sister thinks than what God thinks? This is a fellow who rides around in a pick-up truck that has a bumper sticker, "Real men love Jesus."
My wife won't even discuss this topic with me. She takes the husband's side. I tell her it's just the principle of the thing. If the husband (and his sister) cannot practice forgiveness how can they claim to love Jesus?
You have WAY too much drama in your life, Chip. Ever think about moving :-)
I have brought it up a few times and she acts like she really doesn't want me to leave.
She likes being married more than being not married and since her first marriage lasted 2 years and her second one 3 months, and then 15 years passed before her 3rd husband (me)... and I've lasted 18 years although I have wondered why for the last sixteen years... I guess this just feels safe. We don't yell at each other half as much as many of our married friends yell at each other, we never hit each other, and we deal with conflict by going off to ourselves and minding our own business. She loses herself in TV and hobbies; I lose myself in online activities where I can engage in online discussions I can't engage in at home.
I wasn't suggesting divorce, my friend. I was referring to what seems to be the weekly, or daily, drama you have in your life with relatives, friends, and such.
Oh.... You mean the two of us moving far away from these people?
LOL.... a GREAT idea!!! :-)
If you are at least 55 yrs. old I would get information about living in areas for "seninors 55 and older" if possible in a sunny state. You will be surprised of the many activities they are offering. I have heard positives only from friends and neighbors who have moved to such areas.
Good luck, Chipmonk. :)
Well, given how much he complains about his wife, and the kinds of things he says, it isn't too out there to think 'divorce.'
"He"??? I don't call you "she." <sniff>
I say what I think at the moment. I don't always think the same thing even a few minutes after I vent. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. You just see the worst of it during the moments I am most pissed off.
I hope, you will not misunderstand my suggestion, Chipmonk: Try to sleep at least a night over whatever is bothering you before you try to discuss it here?
Would that be solution for you to do?
I kind of understand, but it's my opinion some people read more into it than is there. Not you, but some do. I know what you are saying though... it's analogous to people who write a vehement letter and then wait a day before mailing it. Half the time they end up not mailing it because after some time passes they rarely feel as strongly about the issues.
I am very thankful, Chipmonk, you did not misunderstand my well meant suggestion. It's not always easy to wait, special not when you feel you have to say now what's on your heart and soul. I understand very well you feel releaved as soon as you talk about what's bothering you and sometimes you even find a solution while talking / writing. Besides, it's very important NOT to keep your thoughts, your problems, your anger inside of you.
Knowing that I have another suggestion: When you are alone speak everything what is bothering you at that moment on an audio tape. Just let it go. This way it's off your soul, you feel so much better and strong again and no one else will ever know. Of course, Chipmonk, please never forget to overplay later that tape with music or whatever to avoid that no one else might find and listen to your secret tape. Then you are in trouble! Do you think, that idea might be of help for you?
I wish you a very happy, merry Christmas and a healthy and peaceful New Year with less stress. May 2010 be very good to you, Chipmonk. :)
If he can't forgive her and accept her in the same church, then he shouldn't have gotten back together with her. And he should tell his sister to go screw herself and mind her own business.
I agree. :-)
Chip- The short answer is yes. He is doing three anti-Christian things at once.
True. But he cares more about his sister's feelings than his wife's feelings.
That's one of his non-Christian things. As a Christian, he leaves his immediate family and cleaves only to his wife. The Christian thing to do is go to a different church with his wife until his sister and wife can learn to forgive each other.
#2, As the spiritual leader of his household he has abdicated his responsibility to his sister. (with disastrous results) Real men make the hard decisions.
#3, The "Real Men Love Jesus" bumper sticker comes from Promise Keepers, a men's para-church movement that teaches men how to love their wives in a Christian way, a way that strengthens the man and satisfies the woman's needs also. He violated at least 5 or 6 of their (biblically based) precepts.
If he held himself accountable to me, (which he doesn't) this is where I'd remind him that going to church no more makes you a Christian than going in a garage makes you a car.
Well said!
Is a religious person ... a hypocrite? Yes. Doesn't matter what you put in the blank.
This comment was deleted by greeneyegirl79 .
[-1 points] 120 days ago byThis comment was deleted by greeneyegirl79 .
[-1 points] 120 days ago byAnyone can be hypocritical, it is not a weakness unique only to the religious by any means.
Quite true.
:0)
I didn't suggest it was exclusive to religion.
Ah, but you make it a point to say it doesn't matter what one fills in the blank with because a religious person is a hypocrite.
> Is a religious person ... a hypocrite? Yes. Doesn't matter what you put in the blank.
You clearly single out the religious.
You would have a point if he added "And the non-religious aren't hypocrites at all", which he didn't. He didn't suggest it was exclusive to religion.
No, he didn't add anything extra to the statement, but it is pretty strongly implied with an ellipsis and "doesn't matter what you put in the blank." He knows a statement like that will get a reaction, and I just called it out but stating calmly and reasonably that it isn't a weakness only to the religious, he took it personally, not my problem.
"Strongly implied" isn't the same as "added", and like I said; You would have a point if he added "And the non-religious aren't hypocrites at all", which he didn't.
And he's just angry at your lack of understanding, it's easy to lose yourself explaining something simple to someone who just doesn't understand. But I agree that he shouldn't let his emotions get the better of him.
I'm not angry, dude, I been laughing through this whole thing because it's so fucked up.
Fair enough.
Funny, because I felt lost explaining myself to someone who usually isn't that dense with me. But, I do agree it is easy to let emotions get the better of us.
WTF. Are you just trying to start an argument? This is really stupid, even for you.
Yes, I said religious people are hypocrites. I never said ONLY religious people are hypocrites. Nothing in what I said suggested or implied that the scope of hypocrisy is limited to religious folks.
I'm sure you can find something else worth arguing about, rather than trying to make something up.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Get your panties untwisted man, not trying to start an argument. And pot, say hi to kettle for me, as for someone trying to start an argument - "this is really stupid, even for you", yeah, takes stupidity to know it when you see it I guess.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
And for the record, I voted this one a big yes, the guy is being a hypocrite. And translate you know you would call me out for a similar statement, I know you would, and you have.
True, but not relevant to his statement. The statement took the form of "All A's are B's." This does NOT imply that all B's are A's.
Ah, okay, so I can say "all liberals ... self-important, pompous windbags" and no one should call me out, say the reasoning or statement is incorrect?
Again, you are completely missing the point.
This is EXACTLY the kind of hole in the ability to think that religion brings on.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
NO, I get his point, the religious are hypocrites. GOT IT loud and clear.
And this all furthers my frustration with liberal arrogance and self-important intellectualism.
Yes, that is what he said. And then you said you did not think that unique to the religious. And then he said he never implied that it was. And then you kept going with it. And NEVER admitted that your original statement was about the uniqueness or not of hypocrisy to the religious, and that he immediately agreed that you were right.
A hole in your thinking.
Interesting, I never saw him immediately agreeing that I was right. Saying that he never suggested hypocrisy was unique to religion does not mean his is agreeing that I am right. I admit my original statement argues the fact that hypocrisy is not unique to religion. Which gets to a whole other point, which is it is a dubious statement to say A is always B because there will undoubtedly be those who oppose such a broad generalized statement and will say, but wait, what about C, D, etc. It is a fundamental problem of using the phrase “blank” is "such and such" or "blank" always "such and such."
Your statement: Anyone can be hypocritical, it is not a weakness unique only to the religious by any means.
His reply:
I didn't suggest it was exclusive to religion.
I think what's going on here is that she thinks her response, "Anyone can be hypocritical, it is not a weakness unique only to the religious by any means," somehow refutes my assertion that all religious people are hypocrites. I believe she thinks her statement actually says that not all religious people are hypocrites, but in fact it agrees with my assertion, while widening the scope.
She got caught in what was probably a misspeak and is now fighting an imaginary argument, rather than admitting she fucked up. She's not usually this much of an idiot, so that's the best explanation I can come up with.
Yup.
Actually, you don't have to tell my what I am thinking, thanks anyway.
For the record I wasn't talking to you.
But am I close? This is the only explanation I can think of. What was your point is responding to me with the "anyone can be hypocritical" line? What moved you to write that? What did you think you were saying?
My point of contention from the beginning has been the ALL in the statement, ALL blanks are blank, in this case Christians. I never said or tried to dispute the fact Christians can be hypocrites, but do I agree ALL of them are, nope, and yeah, I pointed out that hypocrisy is not unique to Christians and OBVIOUSLY I should have qualified that with but I don't agree all Christians are hypocrites.
This is the first time you've said that. I'm supposed to believe NOW that was your point of contention? Why the hell didn't you say that three days ago?
I was right, you fucked up and didn't want to admit it, and started all this horse shit just to you wouldn't have to own up.
I DO NOT believe you are that dense and didn't get my point three days ago.
This comment was deleted by greeneyegirl79 .
[0 points] 117 days ago by"I never saw him immediately agreeing that I was right"
Why would I? I NEVER DISAGREED with it. I never expressed or implied disagreement. You made that shit up, looking for an argument.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Nope, don't need to make things up or look for arguments.
That's exactly what you did here. You still don't even see that, do you?
That is not even slightly analogous to what I said.
Religious people are hypocrites. I'll add, for your benefit - even though it is completely irrelevant to the point I was making - that lots of other people are hypocrites too. Is that better for some reason? Did you just need me to say that?
I can't figure this out. You're either being deliberately obtuse and trying to start something (which I still think), or you have completely misunderstood my comments. You're blatantly attempting to manufacture some silly disagreement here where none exists.
I don't really care if you think it is analogous to what you said, point is when you make a statement like such and such or so and so are, well, fill in the blank, there are always, ALWAYS, qualifiers to absolute statements one makes. A person has to be careful when making a statement with absolute qualifiers, because a counter can always break that position. Of course religious people can be hypocrites, but as you do not know every religious person, you cannot state religious people are hypocrites without it being possible for someone to refute your statement. Not every religious person is a hypocrite, there are some, but not every religious person from the beginning of time has been hypocritical and you cannot state that because you have not known every religious person, nor will you know every religious person, so you CANNOT use such a statement WITHOUT there being a counter, as you could NOT make statements about people based on their race, ethnicity, gender, etc. without a big qualifier there (i.e. woman are bad drivers; men are sexist - there are qualifiers to those, and I could think of others statements I could make that I choose not to since they would clearly be insensitive and false.)
And I am not trying to be obtuse or start something. You have taken what I said in pointing out the flaw in a statement you made and made it into something to get riled up over and take a defensive position that I am attacking you by pointing out a falseness to the absolute of you statement.
You did not point out a flaw in what I said. If you think you did, you're a moron.
What you said was that the quality that I said all religious people share is not limited to just religious people. That's fine and that's absolutely true, but so fucking what? It has absolutely nothing to do with my point or the general topic of this question, which is religious people and hypocrisy.
You never challenged my assertion that all religious people are hypocrites. Instead you berated me for not extending the scope of hypocrisy to include other people in addition to religious folks. I didn't do that because that's not what we're talking about, but nothing I said implied that ONLY religious are hypocrites. That's what you attacked me for. That's fucked up.
Man, you've totally lost it. Am I being punk'd or something? You are trying to manufacture an argument here - why, I have no idea. You just like to hear yourself argue, maybe. If that's not the case, and you actually think what your saying is valid, then you're an idiot. I actually had some respect for your intelligence once, why you choose to squander it on this ridiculous bullshit is really perplexing.
First off, what, you "had some respect for my intelligence once," okay, I will try to believe that one. I wouldn't hold my breath though, might be a while for me to really believe you said that or meant it.
Second, ALL religious people DO NOT share some penchant for hypocrisy any more than every white person is a racist or a bigot; nor is every Christian an anti-Semite; nor is every heterosexual homophobic. One might not prove a rule or absolute, but it can only take one to disprove a rule or absolute. I don't need to challenge you on that, really, I don't see how there is much to challenge there.
Third, the question asks if this ONE religious person is a hypocrite in this instance, it NEVER asks if ALL religious people are hypocrites. It appears you made the fist leap extending it to all religious people, which your first statement does, by your own admission, and yes, I took issue with that.
Fourth, I manufactured some argument, really not to bring up past situations but you have berated me for statements I have made you took issue with. We can both be said to be guilty of that.
Yes I did once believe you had some intelligence, despite your wacked out views on things, you were usually pretty good at explaining them and responding fairly. I don't think that anymore though, after this. I don't know what the hell you were thinking here. None of your responses to me make the slightest bit of sense.
Hum, you are not usually this difficult and have actually tried to listen to me, but that certainly has not been the case in this instance. I remain as baffled as you are.
True. But I suggest a far smaller proportion of us atheists are hypocrits than are the religious.
Could be that we just have less to be hypocritical about. I'm quite happy to let (ha!) my wife not attend the church that I don't attend.
Haha, and I am quite happy to let those who don't attend my Catholic Church not attend it ;0)
Re: Could be that we just have less to be hypocritical about?
You may have intended that question as a throw away, by I gave it a little thought. You can only be a hypocrite if you have a set of professed ethics or values. Most Atheists have a set of values, but don't profess them. I suspect Atheists are as hypocritical as anyone else. There just is no written standard to hold them to.
Yes, the stress on PROFESSED. I have a set of ethical values which I have not always kept to (shame on me). But I do not often go about telling other people that their code of conduct must exactly coincide with mine.
And before any debates on the definition -
a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings is a hypocrite. That is not exclusive to religion.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
No one is debating the definition, only the thought process, the logic.
I only stated that because I wanted to make it clear what I was viewing hypocrisy as. I was taking away any religious constructs from it beforehand, which the non-religious would be very quick to clear up since the other definition is is "a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion," which I do not mean in this instance.
Not necessarily. What if his church teaches that his wife should go to a different church and this was his belief as well. It would be hypocritical not to do this. I know that's a pretty far-fetched scenario, but it's possible.
Very far-fetched IMO.
I've never heard of such a thing. Why would they want her to go to a different church?