How do you define hypocrisy?

[cowboy]

I've given this question a lot of thought lately. Of all the low-life sinners that Jesus encountered, the only people that he outwardly dislikes - even loathes- are the hypocrites. Adulterers, thieves, and even the soldiers that hung him on the cross were treated with compassion and understanding, but the hypocrites were the ones he lashed out at.

In that light, I have wondered: what is a hypocrite? And aren't we all hypocrites by the broad definition of "believing one thing and doing another?" We all know that we should be doing something we aren't, or are doing something we shouldn't, but we continue in our transgression. Does that make us the kind of hypocrite that the Lord's wrath will visit?

I have an opinion, but instead of voicing (typing) it, I'll simply pose the question because I'm interested in everybody else's response sans my tainting them.

[Hallelujah]

I've given this question a lot of thought lately. Of all the low-life sinners that Jesus encountered, the only people that he outwardly dislikes - even loathes- are the hypocrites. Adulterers, thieves, and even the soldiers that hung him on the cross were treated with compassion and understanding, but the hypocrites were the ones he lashed out at.

In that light, I have wondered: what is a hypocrite? And aren't we all hypocrites by the broad definition of "believing one thing and doing another?" We all know that we should be doing something we aren't, or are doing something we shouldn't, but we continue in our transgression. Does that make us the kind of hypocrite that the Lord's wrath will visit?

I have an opinion, but instead of voicing (typing) it, I'll simply pose the question because I'm interested in everybody else's response sans my tainting them.

I guess if our hypocrisy leads us to adultery, murder or theft, we should be OK?

[cowboy]

I guess if our hypocrisy leads us to adultery, murder or theft, we should be OK?

But then wouldn't we just be a hypocritical adulterer, murderer, or thief? Then I guess we'd be despised AND sent to Hell.

[Goatnapper'96]

I've given this question a lot of thought lately. Of all the low-life sinners that Jesus encountered, the only people that he outwardly dislikes - even loathes- are the hypocrites. Adulterers, thieves, and even the soldiers that hung him on the cross were treated with compassion and understanding, but the hypocrites were the ones he lashed out at.

In that light, I have wondered: what is a hypocrite? And aren't we all hypocrites by the broad definition of "believing one thing and doing another?" We all know that we should be doing something we aren't, or are doing something we shouldn't, but we continue in our transgression. Does that make us the kind of hypocrite that the Lord's wrath will visit?

I have an opinion, but instead of voicing (typing) it, I'll simply pose the question because I'm interested in everybody else's response sans my tainting them.

His ire was aimed not just hyprocrites in general, but the religious leaders of Judaism. I believe it was not just the hypocrisy but the purposefull use of religious power for one's own gain and social standing. Some call that Priestcraft. In the LDS Church, followers enter into covenant to support Church leaders and I think Christ has a very candid expectation that Church leaders not use that covenant for their vain glory or gain. I think this covers the spectrum from being a patriarch in a home to being a Bishop or any ecclesiastical position of leadership. If you destroy the trust, out of vain glory or a desire for personal gain, a son or daughter of God has in the Church by abusing the covenant that others enter into with respect to the position you presently hold, I think you fall into that hypocrisy Christ railed on so much. I often think of the line that if one is to harm a little child it would be better that a millstone be placed around your neck and your ass shoved out into a deep part of Lake Utah.

I would like to point out that not once did God condemn any of the ladyfolk with fake hooters. Speaks volumes.

[Solon]

But then wouldn't we just be a hypocritical adulterer, murderer, or thief? Then I guess we'd be despised AND sent to Hell.

I have one definition of "hypocrite" for myself, and another definition for everyone else. Just kidding.

The word in Greek is a theater word - it means "actor." Someone who pretends to be someone else is a "hypocrite." That makes sense, but doesn't help too much, I guess. The etymology is even less useful: it literally refers to someone "under judgement" - but only in the sense that actors were part of plays that were being judged in a contest. There's no sense of moral judgment or insincerity.

I'd guess it's about humility and I take the word to refer to false piety and the mere appearance of righteousness. Everyone is a sinner. Hypocrites pretend they aren't.

By the way, I consider myself a hypocrite. Not that I pretend to be anything, but I definitely let people assume that I'm more devout than I am.

[cowboy]

I'd guess it's about humility and I take the word to refer to false piety and the mere appearance of righteousness. Everyone is a sinner. Hypocrites pretend they aren't.

I think that is very well put.

By the way, I consider myself a hypocrite. Not that I pretend to be anything, but I definitely let people assume that I'm more devout than I am.

I think we are all guilty of that to some extent. Furthermore, I think many of us don't even realize it, because we convince ourselves that we are more devout than we are.

[cowboy]

I would like to point out that not once did God condemn any of the ladyfolk with fake hooters. Speaks volumes.

At the risk of hijacking my own thread, how would you feel if you had a daughter come up to you and say, "Dad, I like boys, and boys like big jugs. So, to ensure that I find a suitable mate, I'd like you to invest in my implants. This will guarantee that I will more quickly find a worthy priesthood holder who will rush to take me to the temple so he can rip off my C cup support bra and feel me up."

Just wondering.

[Goatnapper'96]

At the risk of hijacking my own thread, how would you feel if you had a daughter come up to you and say, "Dad, I like boys, and boys like big jugs. So, to ensure that I find a suitable mate, I'd like you to invest in my implants. This will guarantee that I will more quickly find a worthy priesthood holder who will rush to take me to the temple so he can rip off my C cup support bra and feel me up."

Just wondering.

How would I feel? Like any red blooded American man, I would feel like I raised me a stupid kid. If you are gonna use my hard earned cash for a little more bounce for the ounce, no child of Goatnapper will stop at a C cup! This is for America we are talking about people and if I am anything, a patriot I am by damn! It would be D cup or bust for that bust!

C cup? Harumph. I was thinking I needed another in the rural caucus so we could have a majority and clearly I am leaning toward inviting the academic weenie over a real live rancher. Lizbeth Honey, I'm comin' to join ya!

[TripletDaddy]

Hypocrites are fairly vocal about what everyone else is doing wrong.

Sinners just go about their business and try to do their best, not getting too caught up in what everyone else is doing wrong.

[cowboy]

How would I feel? Like any red blooded American man, I would feel like I raised me a stupid kid. If you are gonna use my hard earned cash for a little more bounce for the ounce, no child of Goatnapper will stop at a C cup! This is for America we are talking about people and if I am anything, a patriot I am by damn! It would be D cup or bust for that bust!

C cup? Harumph. I was thinking I needed another in the rural caucus so we could have a majority and clearly I am leaning toward inviting the academic weenie over a real live rancher. Lizbeth Honey, I'm comin' to join ya!

You need to know that, as a rancher, I'm predisposed to smaller proportions over larger. A cow with a large udder winds up a short-lived producer, or at least has problems later in life related to large udder, teats, and milk volumes. We cull them early. Sorry.

[Katy Lied]

In that light, I have wondered: what is a hypocrite?

A hypocrite leverages religious capital for personal gain. And I mean "religious capital" in the same sense as political capital, although you atheists may substitute "social capital."

This definition necessarily excludes public sinners, since they cannot leverage what they do not have. It also excludes true godly people who refuse to leverage their good name and reputation for gain. This leaves us with those who are outwardly good in order to obtain something. The very act of leveraging a good reputation brings up the specter of hypocrisy.

I can't help but think my brief 8-word definition is necessary but not sufficient. I wonder if something should be added to it.

[creekster]

A hypocrite leverages religious capital for personal gain. And I mean "religious capital" in the same sense as political capital, although you atheists may substitute "social capital."

This definition necessarily excludes public sinners, since they cannot leverage what they do not have. It also excludes true godly people who refuse to leverage their good name and reputation for gain. This leaves us with those who are outwardly good in order to obtain something. The very act of leveraging a good reputation brings up the specter of hypocrisy.

I can't help but think my brief 8-word definition is necessary but not sufficient. I wonder if something should be added to it.

A couple of thoughts. Public sinners have the greatest potential for leverage, don't they? I realize that is not the point.

Doesn't everyone leverage their religious capital for their personal gain? Isn't that exactly what the godly people do? The difference seems to be not the presence or absence of leverage, but upon whom is the fulcrum, God or the public. IOW, it seems to me to make your definition complete you would need to add an element relating to the public or temporal or mortal orientation of the leverage. Something like that.

[Babs]

A hypocrite leverages religious capital for personal gain. And I mean "religious capital" in the same sense as political capital, although you atheists may substitute "social capital."

I think you're confusing or conflating hypocrisy and self-righteousness, which is easy to do because the two so often coexist. Self-righteousness is when a disparity in moral capital is fabricated in order to foster an advantage over or create a sense of superiority over another.

Hypocrisy is when one fails to act on the principles he espouses. But there are any number of examples when there is no religious or social capital involved. If I tell my son he has to do his chores before he can watch TV, but I watch TV before I do the dishes, that's hypocrisy. But there's been no shift in any kind of capital.

Hypocrisy does not exist in the moral or religious context alone.

[Katy Lied]

Hypocrisy is when one fails to act on the principles he espouses. But there are any number of examples when there is no religious or social capital involved. If I tell my son he has to do his chores before he can watch TV, but I watch TV before I do the dishes, that's hypocrisy. But there's been no shift in any kind of capital.

Hmmmm.

I would argue that you telling your son to wash the dishes before watching TV is leverage of a mother over a son--in this case more dictatorian. Now if you told your son to wash the dishes before watching TV because you always do it that way, you've employed your reputation for dishes-before-tv in order to convince your son.

If your son considers your good reputation, and then does as you want, you have employed your reputation and got the result you wanted. I haven't thought about a shift in capital, merely leveraging capital. (I have to think about your comments on the shifting)

This is why no one is a hypocrite before God, who has perfect information.

Here is another example about the leveraging of "reputation capital" (You see I've changed it from religious or moral capital after considering your comments).

Situation 1:
Smith, a devout insert religion contracts with Jones. Smith promises with an oath before his God that he will abide by the terms of the contract, or may his God smite him dead. Jones must now consider whether to take the risk. Jones doesn't have to believe in Smith's God, Jones doesn't even have to believe in God himself. The contract works as long as Jones believes that Smith believes in God.

Situation 2:
Smith, a devout insert religion contracts with Jones. Smith promises with an oath before his God that he will abide by the terms of the contract, or may his God smite him dead. Jones must now consider whether to take the risk. Jones does not know how devout Smith is, so Smith has to convince Jones that he really really believes his God will smite him if he doesnt perform. Smith now has an incentive to employ leverage over his reputation for piety. The contract may not work unless Smith can convince Jones that he is a godfearing man. Leveraging begets hypocrisy, because Smith will always have an incentive to overreport his piety.

But the only difference between Situation 1 and 2 is that in 2, Jones has imperfect information. And hypocrisy can only arise with imperfect information. It seems that my definition (reputation capital --> leverage = hypocrisy) is naively simplistic, but it's also consistent.

(Plus, Occam would be proud)

Forgive my obscure prattling. I'm now going to wonder if the Jews of the OT were able to transact a lot of business with foreigners and heathens because of reputation effects tied to their monotheism. After all, with polytheistic believers, it is not clear which god they are swearing upon. Some gods in the pantheon probably contradicted each other.

[Katy Lied]

Doesn't everyone leverage their religious capital for their personal gain? Isn't that exactly what the godly people do? The difference seems to be not the presence or absence of leverage, but upon whom is the fulcrum, God or the public. IOW, it seems to me to make your definition complete you would need to add an element relating to the public or temporal or mortal orientation of the leverage. Something like that.

I think by moving from religious capital to reputation capital, I sidestep the dangers that you point out.

I also like the note of spiritualism you interject.