Skip to main content
Here's something I don't understand: Why do people judge Christians for being hypocrites? That's like saying, 'How dare you be call yourself a Christian and still be human!' I don't understand why people say 'I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians.' Well, neither do I much of the time. Since when does faith have to do with liking things? Since when does loving people depending on their consistency? Granted, I've always been a Christian and I've never doubted my faith. I've always looked at the inconsistencies of Christians the same way I look at the inconsistencies of human beings. As humanness. But if your criticism of Christians is really a disagreement over their perspectives on sexuality or politics, then please don't confuse that with Christians being un-Christlike. I'm not saying they are Christlike - but I'd be making myself the hypocrite by judging them according to my own self-righteous notions.

Comments

  1. I understand 100%.

    Better to strive to be like Christ and fail miserably than to live a life wholly self consumed.

    And most of the hot topics aren't even really that important when you really think about it. And most are misunderstood by those both by those in the church and in the general public who barely know the basics let alone the roots of the crisis.

    Its log in my eye, man.

    ReplyDelete
  2. yeah, so i was just a little bit annoyed when i wrote this post. i mean, i suppose i've met a few of the 'hypocrite' christians they talk about, but unless i'm just really clouded by being one of them, i can't help but see the church as a bunch of average people. it's tricky, being annoyed. i makes you write really bad run-on sentences and comma splices and other examples of super bad grammar choices.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can someone please explain why my Quicktime isn't working? Anyone with prophetic awareness of my little Atlas, none so old but recently behaving so?
because you were all wondering what I'm writing my dissertation on, here's a brief synopsis of my 'research context': When James Macpherson published his Fragments of Ancient Poetry in 1760, he went to great lengths to make the Fragments appear to be authentic remains of an ancient, heroic oral tradition. His reasons for this were largely political, and as such, influenced the content of the epics themselves. As an attempt to establish a particularly Scottish identity, the poems were quite effective. However, to do so required both a simplification and a manipulation of traditional mythology. Stripped of anagogical significance, the Ossian epics more or less represented an Enlightenment version of history, tradition, and mythic heritage. The stories themselves were changed by their very purpose and in turn changed the manner of representing myth in future narratives. Moreover, the emphasis on the Ossian epics as authentic tales from the past, as ‘fragments,’ served...
Kathryn, do NOT be jealous of me going to the opera. It was weird. They were wearing these bulky animal costumes and clonking boots which might have been okay except that their footsteps drowned out the sound of the orchestra (Oh look! A band!). The plot was supposed to be about the circle of life or something deep, but it really seemed to be more about animals getting it on. It was an opera, though, so plot really shouldn't matter as long as the music is good. It wasn't. I mean, it wasn't BAD - but most of the singing was monotonous, the orchestration was unremarkable, and I hope to heaven no one from the production reads this. It would be so disheartening! They were all skillful - I just wasn't interested in the piece itself. But then, I have only ever seen very classical sorts of pieces. The Marriage of Figaro. Samson and Delilah. And I was listening to Puccini before leaving the house! What do you do? But then again, I was distracted by my seating companion. Five so...