Why is Friar Laurence hypocritical?
109098
LOL a man. Royal Family Memba.
114251
Ever heard of the word "hypocrite"?
716409
Jesus said, "Woe to the scribes, and Pharisees"! The scribes are the ones who made copies of the Holy Books in the old days. They didn't have prinitng pressesd. And they undoubtedly made errors, and were even pressured by the religious leaders of they day to add things they wanted in there.\nI seriously doubt the Angel Gabriel or Muhammad ever called any human\nbeing a pig or a dog. And there are obvious patriarchal, (male dominating),\naspects to our Holy Books!
671809
I figure it is both sides. one only a holy man would know about the Satanist act of he upside down cross. He has also lived 26 years of probably denial if he did it. I heard that the nun and fr. robinson had a long quarrel due to the nun cutting Father Robinson's Good Friday mass short. So anger could have taken over him. Also he says he was in the shower at the time but witness's said he was the one who killed her. I figure it is kind of pathetic when he would not even answer when he was found guilty. He could get beaten around by other people in jail. He is 68 he would not be able to survive. He could at least plee insane and be sent to a clinic where he is not going to get beaten around. I think that he might have better luck when they appeal the case. So God please bless Father Robinson so he doesnt get hurt
1093041
I wonder why he quit?  I mean, he's supposed to be the same Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.  In the OT he was wrathful and ready to pounce on anyone who sinned and would be quite happy to include their entire family in the punishment.  In the NT, he's suddenly happy and loves everyone.
1121257
The first time I read Isaiah 58, I cried.  And I'm misty reading it again just now.\n\nThis terribly sad Chapter is one of many oracles Isaiah was told to give the Jewish people.  The gist of the entire Chapter is this:  don't say with your mouth you love God, but prove with your actions you don't.  The people said they loved God and they even enjoyed seeking Him in prayer and fasting.  However, when they fasted, they did so for the wrong reasons and they indulged in physical pleasures and iniquity, such as refusing to pay their laborers.  God sees right through this hypocrisy and insists that Isaiah yell his condemnatory message from the rooftops.  The people hated him for it, just as they hated Jeremiah and the rest of the prophets.  And, of course, Jesus.\n\nYes, the world will be angered when you announce its iniquities as if you are blowing a trumpet.  Some, however, will be moved to repentance.  That's what encourages me.\n\nPeace and love in Jesus.
683390
The writing in the bible is one-dimensional and often immorality is portrayed as moral.\n\nMost importantly, Mr. Brown lists his book as fiction.  The Bible claims it's ludicrous stories are absolutely true.
1105873
The pearly gates thing is just tradition.  It's not Biblical.\n\nBut, for the record, remember that Peter denied Jesus three times the night Jesus was arrested.  Ouch!
1145455
Because he seems to be a bit primitive for a 21st century presedent. We aren't barberians anymore.he called himself a "war presedent", why would any civilised person with good morals follow such barberic ways?
957333
I'm Catholic/Christian & I will quote from my source exactly what my church says about torture under the heading "Respect for bodily integrity"-- Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the  person & for human dignity.\n\nIn the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill," & adds to it the banning of anger, hatred & vengeance.  Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.  He told Peter to leave his sword in its shealth.
496056
I think the reason is that liberals believe that man is capable of being perfect without anybody's help. They think that all it takes is education. This is the reason behind much of their supposedly self-righteous anger at anybody who seems to diagree with them:\n\n"I've just explained my position to this person, and he disagrees! Since I can't possibly be mistaken, he might simply be too stupid to understand. I'll be patient and give him a second chance."\n\n(After explaining a second time,)\n\n"I've just explained my position to this person who was pretending to be honestly curious and he STILL disagrees! Since I can't possibly be mistaken, and he doesn't seem to stupid to understanmd, he must be DELIBERATELY pretending to be dumb in order to waste my time! That makes him a CAD as well as a HERETIC! What's more, he knows EXACTLY how much what he says and does irritates me, AND HE'S DOING IT ON PURPOSE!"\n\nThe above assumptions cover most if not quite all of the liberal position. People are not born liberal. What kind of person does it require to take an innocent child and turn them into a liberal...? I will tell you what kind of person you need. It takes a villain.\n\nYou correctly point out that liberals are dissatisfied with Christ, this is because they largely do not have a personal sense of sin. They see no need or a Savior, they do not recognize the moral response of guilt (" 'laws' are for the governed, not for the governor") and they have lost all sense of shame.\n\nLiberals appear to recognize guilt only as a means of manipulating people; they will not admit to a real sense of moral guilt because that would be to recognize a standard be behavior above themselves. They respond to attempts to put them on the same footing with the rest of the world as attempts to shame them, and their pride will not allow them to admit that they might be mistaken. So they castigate those who would criticise them, at the same time hurling terrible and vicious attacks against their opponents, in an attempt to shame their opponents. \n\nBecause they do not realize that there must be a basis to moral accusations, their attacks are largely built on emotional appeal, and are factually invalid.\n\nThis unyeilding effort to block all sense of personal responsiblity has its parallel in an individual psychological response, called malignant narcissism.\n\nMalignant narcissism was first described by a psychologist and author Dr. M. Scott Peck in his books The Road Less Traveled, and others. He describes the resistance of some hideously selfish people to recognize their own selfishness. This was his attempt to describe the moral condition traditionally called 'evil', in psychological terms. When faced with the 'good', evil must destroy it or be forced to face its own selfishness.\n\nIn American liberalism to day, I believe that we see malignant narcissism raised to the institutional level.\n\nThe group behavior of people may be either better or worse than their individual behavior. Among Christians we recognize that we ought to continue to assemble together on a regular basis becuse we will stimulate each other to love and good works more than if we do not meet regularly.\n\nAnd, we have (unfortunately almost daily in the news) seen reports of troublemakers who, egged on by their peers, commit even more heinous acts of violence and selfishness than they would have stooped to without such provocation. What makes organized crime and gang activity so bad and so dangerous to the community is the fact that it is organized. Organization is a 'good', which was made and intended to serve other goods. It is terrible that it has been coopted and enslaved to serve evil.\n\nSo it is with liberalism in America today. (By the way, I  hope nobody has misunderstood-- this is political liberalism I am talking about. Liberal Christians are a different matter, in terms
346166
It is hypocritical i agree. it is condemnable to give capital punishment for conversion and i support their stand who were keeping tab on a 16 year old case of conversion. but I doubt if that man would have been in jail for conversion to any non christian relegion would it have attracted so much concern? \n\nmost of the organization in Afganistam  are looking out for their interests. the type of humanists you are looking for are not many and those who claim to be one do not go at such places where monetary benfits are absent and risk to their life is many fold.
211778
Juliet's attitude toward Paris is not a friendly one. The quote you've mentioned shows that she does not approve of him thinking of her as his lady or his wife because she is not (yet) married to him despite her father's promises and arrangements made. Probably she does not outright hate him but feels a resentment that he would simply assume her to be overjoyed at the arrangement of marriage she had no part in making.
1022063
There usually IS a "parable-in-the-making" where Jesus' ministry is concerned: You probably know the circumstances of his little diatribe, so we needn't go into that. However, think on the age-old practice within the Catholic Church of purchasing "indulgences." The Holy Temple was NOT a place for collecting undue profits from pilgrims trying to pay homage to their Lord. This also extends to the very hearts, souls, and minds of people... as you probably well know. In fact, it speaks to the essence of the God-Human relationship.
99476
I think the church has a lot of different motivations for why they take offense to certain books.  There is the simple offense, where people deem certain content inappropriate because it is morally questionable.  For example, a group of parents discover a book that includes violence or sex inappropriate for their children and want to protest or boycott to have the offensive content removed.  The motivation is straight forward not surreptitious.  The solution is to restrict expose for the children you are responsible for, but it is extreme to try to decide what is appropriate for other people.  The second reason is not so pure.  The church may fear the challenge of different ideas.  They may feel that it weakens their power or control over people and situations.  Case in point, literature that is pro-birth control or not anti-abortion may be banned by the church because it challenges what they say and they may loose control over people when individuals read the information and become educated by the information.  The church used to only allow the Bible to be translated into Latin so that only a select few could read it and they would only share ideas that they wanted people to be exposed to.  This gave them control to manipulate the masses; it robbed people of their right to make their own decisions and to educate themselves.  I believe the church still engages in this practice and it is manifested in the church becoming offended and banning.
597030
Be careful,the christian reich will have your question deleted!I bet there will be at least 4 to 8 people saying that either your wrong and will burn in hell, or that one prophet or another shouldn't be brought into this.I understand what you are asking,they do that because they can't handle the fact that they are at fault,"I'm saved from fault by the blood & sacrifice our lord made for me!"(as he types he speaks in a whinning voice)They can't admit thier faults antmore than my dog can type with one paw tyed behind her back!
669419
The church opposed humanism because it is a preoccupation with the human condition and they wanted people to be preoccupied with God instead, not themselves.\n\nCute picture by the way (the rabbit)