Tag Archives: hypocrisy

I almost went back on facebook . . .

But I just can’t handle the stupid.

I’ve toyed with getting back on, mainly for convenience of certain things that are only on FB (a few communications things), but when I was logged on to my wife’s account this weekend to check something I saw too many depressingly stupid posts by some of her FB friends.

One was a rather ironic meme about how people couldn’t believe Trump was elected after making fun of the disabled reporter. Of course several people chimed in with righteous indignation and Trump Derangement Syndrome to agree with the person who posted it There were a few sizable problems with all this.

  1. It never happened. Even though wolves like Rachel Held Evans were debunked for repeating that vicious lie, it is still being spread four years later by the ignorant and/or malicious.
  2. Since it is truly fake news and violates the written standards of Facebook and Twitter, why don’t they delete those memes and block the accounts of those who post it? Oh, right, shameless hypocrisy.
  3. Even if Trump mocked the disabled reporter, which is worse, making fun of someone or killing them? The Trump haters are pro-abortion zealots who rejoice that abortion can reduce Down Syndrome cases, for example, by killing children with it before they are born. The person posting the meme actually has a special needs child but doesn’t realize the incongruity of her belief system. So Trump didn’t make fun of the disabled person but these people ghoulishly let the unborn be killed because of their disabilities – or any other reason! Because love is love, right?
  4. These ignorant Leftists know nothing about Biden’s evils (his lies about the accident that killed his first wife and child, the way he married he current wife, how he called someone fat for daring to ask him a real question, how he sold out U.S. interests to China, and so much more).

So I’m going to stay off of FB for now.

Auditioning for marriage? How many tryouts is too many for a Christian?

A friend posted a link to My Big Virginity Mistake on Facebook to get me to respond.  For the sake of context, the friend isn’t a Christian but the author of the link claims to be one.  The final line of her article was, “I learned that sex is important enough not to wait.”  So she claims the name of Christ while explicitly opposing God’s word.

The issue isn’t whether people will always meet God’s standards.  We never have, which is why the truths of Jesus and God’s grace are such Good News!  But if we really know and love him we won’t teach the opposite of what He says.

Here’s the comment thread (Snark alert: We go back a long way and aren’t bashful with each other).

  • Me: Yeah, she definitely should have slept with hundreds of guys until she found one that was perfectly compatible with her. That never has any negative consequences. That is so much wiser than doing it God’s way and making a commitment for life. 

    I hope you are smarter with your daughters than you are on Facebook.
  • Him: i think the point of the story was that if she slept with the man she loved prior to marriage, she would not have married him. one is not 100s. and aren’t we being a wee bit hypocritical?
  • Me: If your premise was accurate, it would have been an error on my part, not hypocrisy. But let’s examine your premise more closely. You think that it would be better for the number to be more than zero. So in her case, if this person (who claims Christianity but obviously disagrees with what God clearly said) had premarital sex with the man she “loved” then she wouldn’t have married him. That’s a victory if you are right. 

    But wait, wouldn’t she have to have sex with the next guy as well before she married him? Oops, another one that isn’t perfectly compatible. So another victory for you and her! The system works. 

    On to number 3: D’oh! Still not a match. But your system is working just fine! I mean, once you, in your infinite wisdom, established that God is wrong and the number should be greater than zero, then the burden of proof is on you to establish the upper limit. In this case she would have had to have at least two out-of-wedlock encounters (assuming #2 was “the guy”). So if 2 is OK, why not 3? Or 4? or 100? 

    You haven’t completely suppressed the truth, so deep down you know something is wrong with 100. In fact, you thought it was outrageous that I brought it up. So that’s a good sign! There is hope for you. (Interestingly, the liberal Dear Abby said something similar once. While opposing God’s design for sex she was still aghast that at her current pace a reader would have 100 “lovers” by the age of 25. But she never explained the contradiction in her worldview.)

    But you and the sad author have some work to do to explain precisely what the upper limit is. And you have to explain why 5 is fine, but 6 is not. Or why 99 is fine, but 100 is not. Good luck!

    And then for extra credit you can explain why people who practice violating God’s design for sex before marriage will feel obliged to follow it afterwards. We all sin, so I’m not saying this as an expectation for perfection from anyone, but if we can’t even point to the right standards then that is a sad thing.

    You might consider if your premise is false. Perhaps sex isn’t something you audition for to see if you are compatible (If one is male and the other is female then you are compatible. Trust me.) or good enough. Perhaps it is “God’s wedding gift” so that you can enjoy it under the safest possible conditions — emotionally, physically and spiritually.

Massive Gun Roundup

No, not the Leftist kind, the news kind.

—–

It is tragic how the convergence of malice and naiveté lead to restrictions on people defending themselves against criminals and potentially against their government. The malice is from those who want to disarm you so you can be controlled more easily.  The naiveté is from those who think that utopia is possible in this life.  If you want a perfect place to live, then repent, trust in Jesus and then hurry up and die.  Otherwise, you are stuck here where you have to make trade-offs and adult decisions.  Thinking that disarming the innocent will somehow protect you from evil people is just a false sense of security they are selling you.  Do you not realize that the government is made up of the same kind of greedy, sinful people that populate the rest of society?

The ignorance of history — what has happened in other countries, plus the reasons the 2nd Amendment exists — is a big part of the problem.   And it is unlikely that is an accident, given the political views of most educators.

This can’t be right – I thought the 2nd Amendment was all about hunting . . .

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
—Thomas Jefferson

Read more about the original purpose.  And keep in mind that these un-Constitutional proposals are a great way to take attention away from the fact they are rapidly destroying the country by borrow half of what we spend.  This can’t last, folks.

Most agree that some people shouldn’t have guns. Please restore the ability to get nuts off the street (see Guns don’t kill people, the mentally ill do). But silliness about rounds and calibers should be done away with. You need to have at least one more round than the bad guys have.

I have a few follow up questions for the Obama-prop 8 yr. olds used in the President’s press conference: Do you know what the 2nd Amendment is and why the Founding Fathers included it in the Bill of Rights?

If bad people came to your house with guns and the only way to save the lives of your family was to defend yourself with guns, would you want to have you and your family die rather than to stop the nice President from taking your guns away?

Do you think your Mom should have had the right to have you killed before you were born?  Or if you survived the abortion, should it have been legal for the doctor to just let you die?  Because Mr. Nice Guy Constitutional Scholar Won’t-Someone-Please-Think-of-the-Children President Obama not only thinks that your moms had a right to abortion, but the right to a dead baby, and he thinks that if they couldn’t have afforded to kill you that people who oppose abortion should have had to pay for it.

Now back to the President: Please tell us more about how our first task as a society is to keep our children safe.

The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.
Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403

Why are the anti-gun people so anti-women?  Don’t they want women to be able to protect themselves from rapists and abusers?  Do you think that gang-rape in India could have been prevented if someone had been armed?  That is one of millions of examples.  It isn’t that you have to carry a gun, but that the bad guys don’t know if you have a gun.  If Obama & Co. get their wishes, they’ll know we are unarmed.

Violent crime rate more than doubled in the four years after the 1997 UK gun ban.

Take a lesson from Canada: gun registries are later used to confiscate guns

What happened when Australian citizens had to turn in their guns?

An easy way to contact all your political leaders and tell them not to promote un-Constitutional laws.  Just a few clicks and they’ll know where you stand.

Five Facts to Fire at the Gun-Grabbers

1. Gun violence has been declining.
2. Despite the politically driven hype, mass shootings are not becoming more frequent.
3. Schools are safer than they were.
4. There are more guns out there, despite (or more likely, causing) the decline in gun violence.
5. “Assault weapons” bans have no effect on crime or violence.

A must-see video about how the Democrats and media “elites” mock and dismiss anyone who disagrees with them, even while ignoring that many people support these actions and that those hypocrites have armed guards at the schools of their children. 

Too bad the Republicans don’t put out ads like this.

Man shoots robbery suspect to protect his 2-year-old son – Why didn’t Obama bring this family to his press conference?  Why doesn’t the media trumpet all the self-defense stories that save lives every day?

Why doesn’t the media tell you 24×7 about the mass shootings that never were, because an armed citizen saved the day?

Here are a “few” more:

Ann Coulter lists just a few examples of guns in the hands of bystanders saving lives by stopping massacres:

—Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

—Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)

—Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

—Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

—Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

—Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

Here are a couple more:

—Muskegon, Michigan: From the Aug. 23, 1995, issue of the Muskegon Chronicle: “Plans to slay everyone in the Muskegon, Michigan, store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their ‘gnawing hunger for crack cocaine’ fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back. Store owner Clare Cooper was returning behind the counter after showing three of the four conspirators some jewelry, when one of the group pulled out a gun and shot him four times in the back. Stumbling for the safety of his bullet-proof glass-encased counter, Cooper managed to grab his shotgun and fire as the suspects fled.”

—Colorado Springs, Colo.: On Dec. 9, 2007, gunman Mathew Murray, 24, launched an armed attack against the parishioners of the New Life Church that ultimately left two innocent victims dead. But the toll could have been much higher, were it not for the heroic actions of former police officer Jeanne Assam from Minnesota. In an interview she said she very nearly decided not to go to church that morning but because she saw a headline on her computer indicating that two young people were murdered and a training center for Christian missionaries about 70 miles away in the Denver suburb of Arvada, she changed her mind. Murray shot a total of five people before an armed Assam shot and killed him. There were about 7,000 people at the church at the time of the attack.

This is why mass murders virtually always occur in gun-free zones. Only the most clueless liberals don’t know this. Despite the phony tears and sanctimonious rhetoric, they could not care less about preventing mass murders. Their only objective, other than to steal our money, is to snuff out liberty.

—-

Why do you need high-capacity magazines? – Again, you need one more round than all the bad guys after you.  And they generally don’t schedule their assaults against you and let you know how much firepower they are bringing, so you should be able to have all you like.

You definitely don’t want to have a gun if someone like this comes after you – right?  Because people like that would never harm you physically.

Great exposure of the hypocrites who “outed” lawful gun owners but don’t want to tell people that they don’t have guns (or worse yet, they actually own guns!).

And finally, the Queen of Hypocrisy, Diane Feinstein, who carried a gun herself but admits that she will disarm us all as soon as she has the votes.

“If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

Roundup

Coming soon to a country near you?  “Unprecedented” Threat to Parental Rights in Poland — the logical conclusion of the Nanny State.

According to the Polish Labor and Social Policy Ministry guidelines, psychological violence includes, “making the child ashamed, imposing one’s own opinions on the child, criticizing the child continually, controlling the child, restricting the child’s social contacts,” as well as “criticizing the child’s sexual behavior.”

Susan B. Anthony museum open — she was strongly pro-life.

Joe Biden’s raging hypocrisy — the policies they fought for years are working, so now they are taking credit for them.  To make it worse, he denies that he is being hypocritical.  Does he think no one will bring out the old videos to prove him wrong?  Or does he just think the MSM won’t?  Hint: It is the latter.

Socialist Global Warming Hoaxsters

Hey Professor Obama? Remember that Copenhagen Treaty you wanted to saddle American Taxpayers with for untold billions in restitution for Man-Made Global Warming? Well… meet Professor Philip Jones, head of the United Nation’s IPCC who has recently considered suicide:

According the below interview in the United Kingdom Professor Philip Jones admits there is no data which can be cited from which the infamous ‘Hockey Stick Graph’ was derived.

Professor Philip Jones further admitted (in addition to there being no evidential data that Global Warming occurred from 1995 to present) that new research suggests existing evidential data does not support claims of any man made global warming, ever. And, furthermore that it was hotter in 1000 BC than it is now.

Lets take a look at that article from The Daily Mail in the UK, shall we?

  • Data for vital ‘hockey stick graph’ has gone missing
  • There has been no global warming since 1995
  • Warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changes

Very likely to be coming soon to a country near you: Leaked Document: No Opt-Out for Children from Pro-Gay Classes in Ontario Schools

Public school children in Hamilton, Ontario will not be permitted to withdraw from classes that promote homosexuality, according to the Hamilton Mountain News. At the same time, according to a leaked document obtained by a local journalist, teachers are being instructed to tell parents who object to the curriculum that “this is not about parent rights.”

At the end of January, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) hosted a professional development day dedicated to “equity” training, where they distributed a sheet to teachers with “quick responses” they can offer to parents who object to the school board’s “anti-homophobia” curriculum.

Another reason to home school and to ensure that home schooling stays legal.

Roundup

Too funny: Oh Crap. My Parents Joined Facebook.   I post that as an unapologetic Facebook “creeper” (my daughters’ term) who enjoys the humor, photos and updates from the pages of his children.   We try not to abuse the privilege by posting stupid and/or too many comments, though I imagine that it is a purely subjective assessment on our part.

Eco-fascist celebrities exposed as hypocrites— surprise!  Translation: “I’m a rich, important celebrity who frequently travels on planes for work, pleasure and to tell you that you aren’t important enough to travel on planes, and that traveling on planes is the worst thing you can do to the environment.”

The Pugnacious Irishman (is he still as pugnacious as before or has marriage mellowed him?) had a great post on how Christians should respond to the atheists’ anti-God bus sign campaign.  Short version: Don’t whine because they are using the public square to advance their views, just ask some good questions and have some answers of your own.  It isn’t hard to expose their faulty foundations if you do a little work.

Let’s see: A knee patch was considered unsafe “because the device often failed, forcing patients to get another operation,” but it was approved after ““extreme,” “unusual” and persistent pressure from four Democrats from New Jersey” who just happened to get significant donations from the manufacturer.  Go figure. 

But all the politicians said they weren’t influenced by the money!  Sure.  The law of reciprocity is a very well proven phenomena of human nature.  The Hare Krishnas give you a flower for a reason.  They know that even if you know you are being manipulated you’ll still have an impulse that you must listen to them as “repayment” for their “gift.”  So never be fooled into thinking that large donations don’t generate changes in behavior.

But you can totally trust these folks not to lie to you about health care reform.

Yes, I know that Republicans do the same sort of things.  It just shows how ridiculous our campaign finance process is and how naive voters are to put up with it, and why we always, always, always need to fight government growth.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

A recent commenter did all she could to avoid the topic of a post and railed at length about the hypocrisy of Christians. 

Critics have a point when they demonstrate where some Christians are hypocritical.  After all, Jesus taught to judge but not to judge hypocritically.

But unless the critics are just pointing out the hypocrisy of some Christians as mere trivia, then the critics become judges and hypocrites themselves. 

Think about it: If they reject the Bible, then what is their grounding for claiming that judging and hypocrisy are wrong? 

Even if they could provide a grounding outside the Bible that judging is wrong (they can’t, of course, but that’s a different problem for them), then they are guilty of judging Christians for judging. 

And of course, if they judge others for the (ungrounded) universal sin of judging, then they are hypocrites.

They judge people for hypocrisy when they are hypocrites as well, so they are double hypocrites.

Do they see the irony?  Do they realize their own hypocrisy?  In my experience they don’t.  They are too busy avoiding the central issues of the debate and they use the hypocrisy charge to position themselves as morally superior to Christians.

A friend used to complain a lot about hypocrites in the church.  I conceded that it is often the case, but I finally asked if he was wounded by some hypocrites at some point.  He smiled and said no.  I realized in an instant that he didn’t really care about hypocrisy.  He just used that as an excuse to feel superior to those awful, hypocritical Christians and to avoid God. 

These folks might want to reconsider the definition of hypocrisy as well.

a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

The commenter in question insisted that to judge homosexual behavior as sinful was hypocritical if they didn’t give equal time to all other sins.  But that doesn’t meet the definition.  If one engages in homosexual behavior while speaking out against it then that would be hypocrisy.

Should Christians avoid hypocrisy?  Absolutely.  But we should point out when people try to silence us with silly logic.

Roundup

I have to confess that until Wednesday of this week I didn’t even know who Mark Sanford (aka Stupidity On Steroids) was.  It has been analyzed to death, so I’ll just sum up the political side by saying that Sanford’s sins don’t impact the truth of conservative ideas and that he is the hypocrite, not Republicans (who actually do a much better job of policing their ranks than Democrats).

More importantly, I hope readers will focus on pieces like Randy’s that will help people avoid Sanford’s mistakes. 

I want to give a message to my sons and sons-in-law. Watch yourself carefully. If it can happen to this man, it can happen to you. Never, never develop a “dear, dear friend(ship)” with a lady. It can only lead to problems. In this case, Sanford apparently had a friendship with this lady for 7 years, before it turned sexual. In my opinion, his adultery started long before the last year. I firmly believe that you can’t have a close relationship with any woman other than your wife.

I heard a speaker on a Podcast (Family Life Today, I think) talking about the anatomy of an affair.  What was chilling was how there is a line couples almost always cross before getting physical such that the physical part is inevitable.  In other words, they think they are safe when in reality they have made an emotional bond that dooms them. 

Side note: His wife seems like a class act (seriously).

Speaking of hypocrites, did anyone notice Obama’s outrageous hypocrisy on his health care plan?  Liberal politicians oppose school choice because they aren’t sending their kids to public schools and they want to protect unions.  They oppose true health care competition because they don’t plan on using the services of the common man.  And so on.

Pastor Timothy has a list of the latest scams (I think he wants you to avoid them, not employ them)

Psychiatry Textbook Acknowledges that Homosexuals Can Change — Don’t hold your breath waiting for the MSM to report on this one.  Too many myths to prop up.  But keep it as a reference for when people trot out the “born that way” canard.

Could life have emerged spontaneously on the early Earth? — Great read by the Wintry Knight.  Short answer: Really, really, very unlikely — and that’s an understatement.

Great post at Marie’s place about eternal security (i.e., Can you lose your salvation?) — lots of good back and forth conversation about Reformed theology pros and cons.

Obama is generous — with your money, not his

Which is, of course, another way of saying he isn’t generous at all.

He is a true hypocrite.  He wants to take lots of your money for his pet liberal causes – you know, spread the wealth around – but donates a pittance himself.  Read the link and then see how Obama compares to the eeeeevil Dick Cheney when it comes to giving.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

Less than 1%.  Less than 1%.  Can we remember that stat as the Left tries to deify the guy?

Once again, folks, charity is when you give your own money, not when you force others at gunpoint to support your causes.

P.S. Have I ever mentioned how radically pro-abortion he is?  How can you be for the little guy when you won’t defend the lives of the littles guys (and girls)?