Hypocrisy, Redux

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know that hypocrisy is one of the main reasons that religion really irks me. It’s not that I care much whether a pious person sits in his room and talks to a non-existent being, no matter how ludicrous that seems. No, it’s that usually – and I stress usually, not always – that same person takes his beliefs out into the world and tries to impose those beliefs on everyone else, while ignoring them himself.

In all fairness, though, it doesn’t help that the book he relies upon to find his morality, and for Christians it’s the Bible, is so inconsistent and contradictory, making it that much easier to catch him in egregious hypocrisy. This story I bumped into from a few years ago illustrates the point quite nicely.

Very simply, a Cro-Magnum Christian, arrested for assaulting a gay man, proudly displayed, in his defense, his tattoo, an inscription from the Bible – specifically Leviticus 18:22, which says:

“Thou shall not lie with a male as one does with a woman. It is an abomination.”

The hypocrisy comes in when you turn to the next chapter of Leviticus, specifically  Leviticus 19:28, which says;

You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD

So, this Bible loving Christian, a true Christian™,  cherry-picked a passage from the Bible that confirmed his hatred of all things queer, tattooed the passage onto his bicep, while completely ignoring another passage from the same book of his cherished scripture that admonishes him to refrain from tattooing anything on his body. And this absolves him of any guilt for physically hurting someone because of their sexual orientation.

In short, hypocrisy.

Chalk this up as another data point of evidence for why the world would be better off without religion, CL.

26 thoughts on “Hypocrisy, Redux

  1. The art to being Christian is figuring out the correct interpretation of the Christian bible to allow you to do what you want, get out of what you don’t want to do, and rightly condemn anyone you want. For instance, some get out of the no tattoos rule by interpreting it to only exclude non-Christian imagery. Whatever works. Actually, I think that’s the New Ultra Modern New Christian Bible interpretation of Romans 14:23, “whatever works.”

    Of course that same Romans 14 which allows you to ignore the tattooing, shellfish, no-haircuts and so forth also says you’re not to judge others, but that’s just one interpretation of “Let us not therefore judge one another any more.” As long as you know in your heart it’s right to get a tattoo and beat gay men while wearing polyester and eating a shrimp cocktail, then it’s all good. 🙂

  2. Pingback: Man Tattoos Leviticus 18:22 That Forbids Homosexuality On His Arm, But Leviticus 19:28 Forbids Tattoos [PIC] « heartchasms

  3. What I really love is the arrogance of someone to claim they know what the Bible teaches. To attempt to reconcile all the various authors’ opinions, especially those who wrote in the densest metaphor and allegory, would take several lifetimes. To claim that language is ever unambiguous is nonsense. Anyone who tells me “the Bible says …” I have to fight the urge to roll my eyes.

  4. Obviously, John, this fellow is ignorant of scripture in that he (like most infidels) “cherry-picked” that one verse to fit his particular belief and want for the time. Overall, as the Chief mockingly refers to, there is a certain theme to the Bible which culminates in tolerance. This biker-type doesn’t need to worry that fags are doing their part to subvert and destroy morality in society, because, as the OT plainly illustrates, God will deal with all perverts in His own time, His own way. Even in OT times, if there was any killing to be done, it was to be done under God’s direction, being that it was a theocratic arrangement then.

    The Chief would naturally side-step the fact that the NT deals more with the promised return of Christ, and that it is HE that will dole out the punishment that the impenitent are so fondly desiring. That isn’t to say that Christians and any other morally-conscientious individuals can’t protest against and defy the infidels and fags wherever these present their fallacious theories and arguments supporting such filthy, destructive practices like faggotry.

    I don’t have to thump the shit out of my fag neighbor. Actually, he’s not a bad sort. He keeps to himself and doesn’t flaunt his perversions or make them political issues like some asswipes do. He lives with his ‘wife’ and they keep a pretty nice-looking garden, in contrast with some of the other rat-holes around. Gives my wife gardening tips. If anyone were to try and give them a hard time, they’d have to come through me, first! (And, that ain’t easy!) The difference between him and the radicals is that he knows better than to bring the Bible into the fight. Unlike the deluded out there, he understands that he isn’t going to make a case for his lifestyle off of it’s back and he knows when to STFU. He knows he’ll get no better or worse treatment from me than anyone else does, by refraining from trying to tell me what my beliefs allow or don’t allow. He doesn’t parade naked down the street or diddle little kiddies. Conversely, I don’t pound his ass into the pavement under the impression that I live under a theocracy and that God has directly ordered me to do it.

    He will, though, have to deal with God, eventually… but, that’s not my affair. What IS my affair is not standing idly by, withholding my counsel and testimony while numbskulls pervert and skew scripture to fit their particular likes and dislikes… like that which is done here on a fairly regular basis.

    So, Mr. Anti-theist, your attempts at lumping Bible-savvy folk in with the (pardon the expression) Neanderthals, isn’t going to work. While homosexual behavior will ALWAYS be wrong, it isn’t the mandate of Christians to go around beating up/killing homos. We all have our different ways of handling the situation, however, any of those doesn’t include taking a life except in self-defense.

  5. Gideon sez:
    “Even in OT times, if there was any killing to be done, it was to be done under God’s direction, being that it was a theocratic arrangement then.”

    I’m going off on a tangent here … but that line reminded me of a couple of postpartum depression cases that happened about 4 or 5 years ago. I don’t remember all the details … but I do remember that the trials happened approximately 2 – 3 months apart.
    Case one was a woman that killed her children ( I think it was 3 ) in the bathtub and her defense was that “god told me to do it”
    Case two was a woman that killed her children ( I think it was 2 ) and her defense was “The devil told me to do it”
    The jury in the first case gave her an insanity / manslaughter type conviction. The jury in the second case gave the woman murder one.
    Again I don’t know all the details … maybe there WAS evidence that led to each conviction … just thought it was a bit ironic.

    • Well, Metcalfe, again, that just shows ignorance of scripture. Like I said, any killing that was done in the OT was given under the direction of God, executed corporately, not any IMAGINED order, either. AND, as I ALSO said, the NT does not promote the old way, it’s focus is on the second advent and Christ’s intervention. You infidels really don’t bust many brain cells before you speak, do ya? Emotionalism and anti-theistic vitriol is your mainstay in pretty much anything regarding this subject.

      • Gideon sez:
        “… any killing that was done in the OT was given under the direction of God, executed corporately, not any IMAGINED order, either.”
        OK — How do you know that woman DIDN’T get direction from god? I mean … let’s face it god has a history of giving directions to kill babies.
        Or are you saying that BECAUSE we are not in OT times … this ‘direction’ from god must have been imagined? And if that is true … then nobody can get direction from god ( because we are not in OT times ), therefore god doesn’t “talk” to us … there fore god is dead
        Logic is wonderful 🙂

          • UGH!!!!
            Gideon — I’m being totally sincere now.
            Weak response. C’mon man I depend on you to put up a good defense of you side. You are obviously passionate about your beliefs and when you fold like a house of cards … I really am disappointed.
            I honesly welcome solid arguements to my statements, so that I can learn about the world and myself.
            You can do better.

  6. Great story. I’ve said for years that the planet would be much safer and saner place to live once it’s been eradicated of religion.

    • “I’ve said for years that the planet would be much safer and saner place to live once it’s been eradicated of religion.”

      Gee, Chuck… Stalin and his buddies tried their best!

      At least give ’em an “A” for effort, will ya?


      • Stalin’s primary concern was to eliminate threats to his power, which the church was at that time, fomenting counter-revolution. Once the church was no longer a threat, he happily exploited it, especially during WWII.

        • “Stalin’s primary concern was to eliminate threats to his power, which the church was at that time…”

          That the Wiki response, Chief? The revolution was conceived by the Bavarian Illuminati, specifically by Jesuit Adam Weishaupt, (not Marx and Engels) under the direction and support of the Rothschild/Morgan banking conglomerate. Their (Illuminati’s) plans were temporarily thwarted by the Bavarian government when a messenger was killed by lightning (some say an act of God) while transporting the manifesto. Weishaupt was forced to flee the country.

          To make a long story short, strings were pulled to get the Bolsheviks free passage through American and Canadian ports; financed, and the rest is history.

          The “church” you say Stalin exploited, exploited HIM. The Jesuits (being Catholic/pagan) are anything BUT Christian, having adopted the name for cover purposes. Of course, it was a fairly simple matter after removing the czar and murdering him and his family to implement communism… which, in all actuality, is anti-theism in one of it’s many forms.

        • “Name’s NOT Chuck.”

          Sorry ’bout that, NOT Chuck. I’ll be careful in the future, promise!

          Perhaps, I could just call you Nunchuck?


        • Just ignore him, Charlie. He’s our resident I-haven’t-got-anything-better-to-do-so-I’ll-just-show-you-how-stupid-stupid-can-get Christian.

  7. It’s debatable if, or to what degree religion prompts inhumanity, but one thing is for sure, without religion humanity would be without perhaps the largest influential justification for inhumanity.

    Anyway, Oregon appears ready to end protection for faith healing, which is good news. Bad news is it’s 2011 in the US and it’s still legal to kill your kids with superstition in most states.

  8. I think maybe Gideon’s comments are enough to send anyone on the fence running as fast as they can from any religion, let alone Christianity.

Comments are closed.