Do some people lie about God or Christ?

[Paul of Tarsus]

I was recently dialoguing with our resident prophetess Tam, and she told me that she thinks some people lie about Christ. Is it possible to lie about Christ or God? I define a lie as a deliberate falsehood told to people with the intention of deceiving them. So to lie about Christ or God involves knowing something about either one of them that is not true. I don't see how anybody can know that some statement about about them is true or false, and therefore to lie about them is apparently impossible.

This question is important to Christian apologetics because apologists must assume that they know what's true and what's false about God and Christ. Without that knowledge, there is no defined Christianity to defend, and the warring factions within Christianity have a hopeless task in demonstrating that their brand of beliefs are true Christianity while the opposing sects are getting it "wrong."

[JoeyKnothead]

Can you post an example of a lie somebody told about God or Christ? Remember: You must demonstrate that the alleged lie is a falsehood about God or Christ.

Naw, but I can post an example of this liar...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38323

Notice how many times this liar has been challenged on his claims.

Notice how many times this liar has refused responsibility for his lies.

[otseng]

Moderator Intervention

I'm tempted to close this thread since it's a magnet for people to accuse others of being a liar.

Please debate without commenting or accusing other forum members.


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[JoeyKnothead]

I think it's important to note, in a thread about lies, that folks lie.

I also think it's important to note, in a thread about liies, how some folks'll be all hypocritical and all, and act like anyone else but them is the liar.

I say that as one ready to tell me an outrageous lie, to prove a given point, or to score me extra gifts come my birthday. But I feel confident my post history shows I'll fess me up when I get caught agrabbing me two cookies when the pretty thing says I can only have me just the one.


We debate here, I hope, to get at the truth of claims, even as we learn about the beliefs of others.

Some folks'll tell their beliefs, how proud they are of em, and they point us to what they consider evidence in support about it. I like these folks, goofy as their conclusions may be. I recognize em as meaning well, if wrong. And I hope they understand any disagreement I might have exposes me to being the one with the goofy conclusions. We fuss and cuss, and carry on, but we're honest as we know how to be with one another.

Then we got us this other bunch, they wanna ask about lies - while adamantly refusing to show they speak truth - refusing to offer evidence of their challenged claims, but trying to get onto others for the exact same thing they do themself.

Honor, in debate, demands honesty. And when folks set to accuse others of refusing to accept evidence, or accuse others of lies, as they refuse to stand up to their claims, we need us all to put us a beam in that'n there's eye.

"Why ask for evidence?" When the one making claims is not held to any standard of showing they speak truth?

'Do they lie?'

Is the same thing, in a different way (stay with me here).

When we question why folks won't accept evidence that we refuse to provide, and then ask if that other bunch ain't it but a pack of liars, well that's not just the pot calling the kettle black, that's the pot alooking himself in the mirror, and thinking he's the kettle.

It's just a sad state of affairs that someone can leave challenges to their claims ignored, then open em up a thread about lies.

Where is the honor? Where is the expectation that folks who make claims should be held to those claims?

Where is the honor in opening a thread on how come we should challenge claims, refusing to present evidence for our own claims, and then here we are, afussing about how them over yonder lie?

It's my firm conviction that unless we challenge any claim we seek to challenge, that unless the claimant is beholden to their claims, here, in debate, then we're all a pack of liars for calling this a 'debate'.

We must, we absolutely must hold claimants to their claims.

And when folks ask about lies, we have us all a responsibility to point out those who present lies. We need to point right at em, and say' "Well how bout that".


So, getting back to the OP, well how bout that.

[nobspeople]

I think it's important to note, in a thread about lies, that folks lie.

I also think it's important to note, in a thread about liies, how some folks'll be all hypocritical and all, and act like anyone else but them is the liar.

I say that as one ready to tell me an outrageous lie, to prove a given point, or to score me extra gifts come my birthday. But I feel confident my post history shows I'll fess me up when I get caught agrabbing me two cookies when the pretty thing says I can only have me just the one.


We debate here, I hope, to get at the truth of claims, even as we learn about the beliefs of others.

Some folks'll tell their beliefs, how proud they are of em, and they point us to what they consider evidence in support about it. I like these folks, goofy as their conclusions may be. I recognize em as meaning well, if wrong. And I hope they understand any disagreement I might have exposes me to being the one with the goofy conclusions. We fuss and cuss, and carry on, but we're honest as we know how to be with one another.

Then we got us this other bunch, they wanna ask about lies - while adamantly refusing to show they speak truth - refusing to offer evidence of their challenged claims, but trying to get onto others for the exact same thing they do themself.

Honor, in debate, demands honesty. And when folks set to accuse others of refusing to accept evidence, or accuse others of lies, as they refuse to stand up to their claims, we need us all to put us a beam in that'n there's eye.

"Why ask for evidence?" When the one making claims is not held to any standard of showing they speak truth?

'Do they lie?'

Is the same thing, in a different way (stay with me here).

When we question why folks won't accept evidence that we refuse to provide, and then ask if that other bunch ain't it but a pack of liars, well that's not just the pot calling the kettle black, that's the pot alooking himself in the mirror, and thinking he's the kettle.

It's just a sad state of affairs that someone can leave challenges to their claims ignored, then open em up a thread about lies.

Where is the honor? Where is the expectation that folks who make claims should be held to those claims?

Where is the honor in opening a thread on how come we should challenge claims, refusing to present evidence for our own claims, and then here we are, afussing about how them over yonder lie?

It's my firm conviction that unless we challenge any claim we seek to challenge, that unless the claimant is beholden to their claims, here, in debate, then we're all a pack of liars for calling this a 'debate'.

We must, we absolutely must hold claimants to their claims.

And when folks ask about lies, we have us all a responsibility to point out those who present lies. We need to point right at em, and say' "Well how bout that".


So, getting back to the OP, well how bout that.

I agree with much of what you said. But this... this is just an online site. There's zero way to know if someone is honest or not here. Even if they 'admit' they lied, they could be lying about that! Or not. Only they know.
I think what's important to know is when others see them lying, there's no need to call them out. It's quite obvious most times. And the times it's not? Oh well.
This isn't a scientific journal. No peer reviewing going on. Just a bunch of people spouting their beliefs, no matter how logical or crazy they are.

Just like when 'preachers' tell people 'God wants you to give me your money' or 'God loves you' or whatever, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. And we need to know: people lie. About everything. God included.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I agree with much of what you said. But this... this is just an online site. There's zero way to know if someone is honest or not here. Even if they 'admit' they lied, they could be lying about that! Or not. Only they know.
I think what's important to know is when others see them lying, there's no need to call them out. It's quite obvious most times. And the times it's not? Oh well.
This isn't a scientific journal. No peer reviewing going on. Just a bunch of people spouting their beliefs, no matter how logical or crazy they are.

Just like when 'preachers' tell people 'God wants you to give me your money' or 'God loves you' or whatever, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. And we need to know: people lie. About everything. God included.

If I don't respond to a demand for evidence, there are several possible ways to interpret my lack of response:

A. I lied and therefore have no evidence to back my claim.
B. I'm telling the truth but have no evidence to back my claim.
C. I'm telling the truth but don't see offering evidence as important.
D. I'm telling the truth but don't offer evidence to anybody I find to be annoying or who I don't see as likely to accept the evidence or who will not do anything constructive with that evidence.

There are many more possibilities as to why I may not post evidence, but so far we can see that there are numerous reasons why I may fail to post evidence but be telling the truth, nevertheless. It is simply illogical to conclude that if somebody fails to post evidence, then they must be lying.

It's also illogical to allege that a debater is lying if that alleged lying has nothing to do with the debate. It's a blatant ad hominem attack. I could be lying whenever I post anything on this thread, but if I did, it would be completely irrelevant to the topic of Christians lying about God or Jesus.

In addition, I never criticized anybody for not posting evidence. I just asked why so many people demand evidence when they evidently don't want it. Any sensible person should be able to easily distinguish the two.

Finally, if anybody has read and comprehended what I said in the OP, not only am I not accusing anybody of lying, I am doing the very opposite. I am arguing against what another poster here has said as she alleged that some Christians lie. So any charges of hypocrisy on my part are completely groundless.

I don't normally waste my time with this kind of nonsense, but I just felt I needed to set the record straight. It reminds me of when President Obama proved to the media that yes, he was born in the USA, and that Donald Trump didn't know what he was talking about.

[JoeyKnothead]

I agree with much of what you said. But this... this is just an online site. There's zero way to know if someone is honest or not here. Even if they 'admit' they lied, they could be lying about that! Or not. Only they know.
I think what's important to know is when others see them lying, there's no need to call them out. It's quite obvious most times. And the times it's not? Oh well.
This isn't a scientific journal. No peer reviewing going on. Just a bunch of people spouting their beliefs, no matter how logical or crazy they are.

Just like when 'preachers' tell people 'God wants you to give me your money' or 'God loves you' or whatever, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. And we need to know: people lie. About everything. God included.

From Post 14:

May the gods give me the strength and mental skills to argue against this'n here...

...
I think what's important to know is when others see them lying, there's no need to call them out. It's quite obvious most times. And the times it's not? Oh well.

I work on behalf of em that might not be able to tell.

I live in a nation where folks are still going back to recount the votes of a previous election, on the basis of some dude aswearing him up and down how he was robbed of votes, and the presidency. Where they stormed our nation's capitol based on lies.

This isn't a scientific journal. No peer reviewing going on. Just a bunch of people spouting their beliefs, no matter how logical or crazy they are.

My understanding of site rules is that I'm welcome to challenge me any claim I seek to challenge.

I challenge the claims of anyone who'd dare ask about liars, who can't show he ain't him one of em.

Again, for the reason I seek to ensure those who can't tell, can.

Just like when 'preachers' tell people 'God wants you to give me your money' or 'God loves you' or whatever, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. And we need to know: people lie. About everything. God included.

Problem here is folks are being discriminated against based on lies. Killed based on lies.

As long as anyone asks why we should ask for evidence, without supporting their own claims therebout, then goes on to ask about lies, well how bout that.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 15:

If I don't respond to a demand for evidence, there are several possible ways to interpret my lack of response:

A. I lied and therefore have no evidence to back my claim.

And then go onto fret if maybe that bunch over yonder ain't a pack of liars.

B. I'm telling the truth but have no evidence to back my claim.

I propose it's cause the truth ain't it nowhere amongst the claim.

C. I'm telling the truth but don't see offering evidence as important.

Never met me a liar that thought it was.

D. I'm telling the truth but don't offer evidence to anybody I find to be annoying...

I don't doubt liars consider challenges to their claims to be 'annoying'.

In debate, and don't that beat all.

...
or who I don't see as likely to accept the evidence or who will not do anything constructive with that evidence.

There ya go, blame the challenger for not accepting evidence you refuse to present.

There are many more possibilities as to why I may not post evidence, but so far we can see that there are numerous reasons why I may fail to post evidence but be telling the truth, nevertheless. It is simply illogical to conclude that if somebody fails to post evidence, then they must be lying.

The problem here is how can folks know someone's telling the truth, without some evidnce in support?

Alas, the liar may find many reasons to avoid responsibility for their claims, ya, know with how "annoying" it is for us to expect em to show they speak truth.

In debate.

It's also illogical to allege that a debater is lying if that alleged lying has nothing to do with the debate. It's a blatant ad hominem attack. I could be lying whenever I post anything on this thread, but if I did, it would be completely irrelevant to the topic of Christians lying about God or Jesus.

Wasn't it Cinderella that the shoe fit?
I challenge claims exactly so we can determine the veracity of those claims.
That some find such a condition "annoying" is their problem, not mine.

In addition, I never criticized anybody for not posting evidence. I just asked why so many people demand evidence when they evidently don't want it. Any sensible person should be able to easily distinguish the two.

I do criticize folks who fret about the asking of evidence, who won't put em up none of their own.

I absolutely reject the notion that implicates or declares folks ain't being em 'sensible' about, really, anything. "Sensible" is a subjective term, that some'll toss about to try to draw attention from their feeling "annoyed" at having been asked to confirm they speak truth.

Some folks get their claims challenged, and they fetch on off like a coyote chasing a roadrunner.

They come up with all these excuses about how "annoying" it is to just fess up.

Just fess up.

Finally, if anybody has read and comprehended what I said in the OP, not only am I not accusing anybody of lying, I am doing the very opposite. I am arguing against what another poster here has said as she alleged that some Christians lie. So any charges of hypocrisy on my part are completely groundless.

And my thing here is to point out how some folks'll fret why we should ask for evidence, while offering em up none of their own, and to then fret about lies.

Notice the slur there "and comprehended".

I comprehended, I just went me a way about it this'n here finds "annoying".

I don't normally waste my time with this kind of nonsense, but I just felt I needed to set the record straight. It reminds me of when President Obama proved to the media that yes, he was born in the USA, and that Donald Trump didn't know what he was talking about.
[Presents image]

I don't doubt ya got born.

I doubt your ability to show you speak truth.

.

[tam]

Peace to you (all),

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #16]

I am arguing against what another poster here has said as she alleged that some Christians lie.

A - I did not allege this. I said that there are lies out there about Christ and God. I stand by that statement. It should not be too hard to grasp since we all know that some of the things told about Christ and God contradict other things told about them. Two truly contradictory things cannot both be true; at least one of them must be a lie, a falsehood. Those lies are indeed out there (in the world). Even if (some/many) people do not know where the lie originated.

B - You actually seem to have no problem understanding that some people might indeed lie about Christ and God, because on another thread you said this:

Of course, it's not hard to understand that people would make up a scary God because fear can be a powerful motivator. If you can't join 'em, then scare 'em! - "PaulofTarsus"

Just sayin'



Peace again to you all.

[brunumb]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #18]

It seems to me that if you are in a debate over a particular question the prime objective is to win and compelling evidence is going to be the clincher. So why would anyone claiming to have that evidence refuse or fail to present it? The most obvious conclusion to me is that they don't actually have any evidence or they know that what they consider as evidence wouldn't really stand up to close scrutiny.

[Paul of Tarsus]

It seems to me that if you are in a debate over a particular question the prime objective is to win and compelling evidence is going to be the clincher. So why would anyone claiming to have that evidence refuse or fail to present it? The most obvious conclusion to me is that they don't actually have any evidence or they know that what they consider as evidence wouldn't really stand up to close scrutiny.

Yes, those are possibilities. In both cases it does not logically follow that the person failing to offer evidence is necessarily lying especially when that person never claimed to have evidence in the first place.