Cheating 'for Jesus'

[Zzyzx]

.
Is it okay to 'Cheat for Jesus� – to use underhanded tactics to promote religious agendas?

Evangelical reverend [Reverend Robert Schenck] ADMITS he paid 'Jane Roe' $450,000 - including handfuls of $100 bills - because she was a 'symbol anti-abortion movement could not afford to lose

As 'Jane Roe,' McCorvey became the protagonist of Roe v Wade - the case that legalized abortion in America. In later years she became an outspoken member of the anti-abortion movement. McCorvey died of heart failure in 2017 and gave a 'deathbed confessional' interview to filmmakers for new FX documentary 'AKA Jane Roe'. In it McCorvey revealed she was paid by the church to be against abortion

But shortly before her death she gave a series of interviews to filmmaker Nick Sweeney and claimed that her anti-abortion campaigning was 'all an act' paid for by evangelical church leaders.

'We stuffed a lot of cash into peoples' hands, I mean it could be a lot of hundred-dollar bills and that wasn't properly reported on.' [Reverend Robert Schenck]

In her death-bed confession McCorvey referred to herself as a the 'Big Fish' in the eyes of the evangelical leaders who courted her. She said, 'I took their money and they put me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say.'
She boasted of being, 'a good actress.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ement.html

Bold added

Doesn't this forfeit any claim to moral high ground, integrity, credibility, or even basic decency?

How can such blatant dishonesty be excused or accepted?

[gadfly]

Hello Zzzyx! I remember you from an earlier post. There I appreciated your bluntness, even if I was a newbie. Again, I hope you won't mind my own blunt reply!

I take the lack of responses to the OP to be answer in and of itself. In fact, I find the answer to be a bit obvious.

My question would be to the originator. What conversation was expected by the OP? That is, was a lively competition in view? Was it honestly and innocently thought that some would say, "Yes, Cheat for Jesus and here is why...."? Or was the OP not so much an invitation for discussion as an ad hominem remark, making a point that some folks out there "cheat for Jesus". But if so, why make the point? Everyone succumbs to the temptation to stoop low to reach high. If a man assassinates a President, is that an argument against Democracy?

Just some thoughts.


gadfly

[Zzyzx]

.

Hello Zzzyx! I remember you from an earlier post. There I appreciated your bluntness, even if I was a newbie. Again, I hope you won't mind my own blunt reply!

Welcome to the Forum Gadfly. Your posts are interesting and thoughtful. Blunt away

I take the lack of responses to the OP to be answer in and of itself. In fact, I find the answer to be a bit obvious.

The topic hasn't been up long – and in the midst of a major Forum changeover. We'll see if it generates responses.

I agree that it should be obvious that it is NOT okay to 'Cheat for Jesus' – but doing so is evidently acceptable to some in the religious hierarchy. I wonder what percentage of Christians would APPROVE of the bribe -- provided it was not discovered. However, I doubt that many will attempt to publicly defend the bribe or other forms of cheating.

My question would be to the originator. What conversation was expected by the OP? That is, was a lively competition in view? Was it honestly and innocently thought that some would say, "Yes, Cheat for Jesus and here is why...."? Or was the OP not so much an invitation for discussion as an ad hominem remark, making a point that some folks out there "cheat for Jesus".

It may help to know that my intent in debating here (for many years) is to present ideas for READERS to consider. Most are bombarded with Christian 'messages' (or propaganda or advertising) for a lifetime, but may not often encounter opposition views.

Claims and stories of 'magical' events and entities are often accepted (usually since childhood) but if examined for truth and accuracy (via verifiable evidence), they do not hold up at all well.

Since this sub-forum (C&A) does not regard the Bible as authoritative, Theists scramble to try to justify and verify claims of knowledge about supernatural entities and events.

But if so, why make the point?

The Roe vs. Wade decision was a major change in US law. When Ms McCorvey supposedly changed her mind, that likely affected the thinking of a lot of people – dishonestly. She was paid to be a turncoat. She was acting.

That is a rather big deal.

Everyone succumbs to the temptation to stoop low to reach high.

Everyone?

I disagree.

If a man assassinates a President, is that an argument against Democracy?

Perhaps you can explain how that relates to “Reverend Robert Schenck ADMITS he paid 'Jane Roe' $450,000 - including handfuls of $100 bills - because she was a 'symbol anti-abortion movement could not afford to lose.”

[gadfly]

gadfly wrote: ↑I take the lack of responses to the OP to be answer in and of itself. In fact, I find the answer to be a bit obvious.

The topic hasn't been up long – and in the midst of a major Forum changeover. We'll see if it generates responses.

I agree that it should be obvious that it is NOT okay to 'Cheat for Jesus' – but doing so is evidently acceptable to some in the religious hierarchy. I wonder what percentage of Christians would APPROVE of the bribe -- provided it was not discovered. However, I doubt that many will attempt to publicly defend the bribe or other forms of cheating.

It seems, then, that you acknowledge the majority of Christians, at least here, would not defend the bribery...any more than you would defend the bribery of an atheist politician.

It seems to me that this bit might have been dropped as inconsequential?

MIght you be engaging in, what politicians call, "mud-slinging"? At any rate, you have not attacked the foundation of anything, merely some who claim allegiance: Trumpsters claim allegiance to the flag. Should we dismiss America because of them?

It may help to know that my intent in debating here (for many years) is to present ideas for READERS to consider. Most are bombarded with Christian 'messages' (or propaganda or advertising) for a lifetime, but may not often encounter opposition views.

I am not at all sure what you mean by READERS, though you capitalize it, which suggests you don't mean me, since I am now, I imagine, one of numerous commentators.

If you don't mean me and other participants, then do you mean mere passerbys? People who jump on but don't register or, if they do, never comment?

But what possible reason would you have to keep them in mind (who may or may not even be viewing) and not the one's actually responding to you? Why not attempt to help us, whom you know are actuallly reading you?

That is a rather big deal.
gadfly wrote: ↑Everyone succumbs to the temptation to stoop low to reach high.


Everyone?

I disagree.

An interesting counterargument. I have never once encountered anyone who said he never lied or fibbed.

Are you the exception? Have you never lied or fibbed?

Or are you merely saying I can't prove that everyone has "stooped low to reach high", on the grounds of....Negativity?

If so, an interesting maneuver.

I confess, Mr. Zzyzx, I am not sure what your logic is. But I am excited to spar nonetheless!

[Zzyzx]

.

I agree that it should be obvious that it is NOT okay to 'Cheat for Jesus' – but doing so is evidently acceptable to some in the religious hierarchy. I wonder what percentage of Christians would APPROVE of the bribe -- provided it was not discovered. However, I doubt that many will attempt to publicly defend the bribe or other forms of cheating.

It seems, then, that you acknowledge the majority of Christians, at least here, would not defend the bribery...any more than you would defend the bribery of an atheist politician.

Correction: What I actually said was: “I wonder what percentage of Christians would APPROVE of the bribe -- provided it was not discovered.”

How can that be twisted to suggest that I acknowledge the majority of Christians would not defend the bribery?

At any rate, you have not attacked the foundation of anything, merely some who claim allegiance:

Your remark is classic 'No true Scotsman' blunder in logic.

Trumpsters claim allegiance to the flag. Should we dismiss America because of them?

We should improve the education system.

It may help to know that my intent in debating here (for many years) is to present ideas for READERS to consider. Most are bombarded with Christian 'messages' (or propaganda or advertising) for a lifetime, but may not often encounter opposition views.

I am not at all sure what you mean by READERS, though you capitalize it, which suggests you don't mean me, since I am now, I imagine, one of numerous commentators.

I recognize a difference between readers (who don't engage in debate) and opposition debaters.

If you don't mean me and other participants, then do you mean mere passerbys? People who jump on but don't register or, if they do, never comment?

Site statistics report that many of our threads receive hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of views. Several have at or over 150,000 views.

I don't have access to site statistics right now due to the big changeover, but it has been common to have three hundred 'visitors' per day – or over 100,000 per year.

Feel free to dismiss them if you wish.

But what possible reason would you have to keep them in mind (who may or may not even be viewing) and not the one's actually responding to you?

Opposition debaters are typically locked in to their beliefs. I have no interest in attempting to overcome their commitment.

Some who view the threads without commenting may well be searching for answers to their own questions. I choose to focus my attention on the latter. Over the years several or many people have indicated, in threads or in personal messages, that they have revised or renounced their former theistic beliefs and that the Forum has been influential in their decision.

Why not attempt to help us, whom you know are actuallly reading you?

What sort of help do you request?

That is a rather big deal.
gadfly wrote: ↑Everyone succumbs to the temptation to stoop low to reach high.


Everyone?

I disagree.

An interesting counterargument.

“I disagree” is not a counterargument

I have never once encountered anyone who said he never lied or fibbed.

Is this to equate 'never lied or fibbed' with 'stoop low to reach high'? Is this to justify or excuse bribing someone to pretend they support a position that they do not?

Are you the exception? Have you never lied or fibbed?

Notice that in disagreeing with the blanket statement ' Everyone succumbs to the temptation to stoop low to reach high', is not a claim on my part.

Or are you merely saying I can't prove that everyone has "stooped low to reach high", on the grounds of....Negativity?

I trust readers will evaluate the merits of your claim.

I confess, Mr. Zzyzx, I am not sure what your logic is. But I am excited to spar nonetheless!

Most opposition debaters seem to fail to grasp my logic – even though I state it clearly and often: Opposition debaters are not the people to whom I intend to present ideas and arguments. Instead, readers are my focus. Opponents are useful when they make unsupported claims of knowledge – then demonstrate a lack of support for their claims.

[RJG]

Religion should never to used as an excuse for wrongdoing.

[VVilliam]

Religion should never to used as an excuse for wrongdoing.

Can you explain to the READERS exactly what should be used as an excuse for wrongdoing?

Re the OP...Is Cheating 'for Jesus' somehow different from 'Cheating for [___________]'?

Is the example a fair enough one? Or are we witnessing a case of cheaters simply using the name to do their cheating by?

Like - 'burning witches' was never really 'for Jesus'... and it is a type of cheating in itself to go along with that idea.