Lying for Jesus

[Jagella]

To any Christian apologist: if you knew that if you lied to a person about Christianity then that person would convert and be saved, would you lie to her or him?

[bjs]

To any Christian apologist: if you knew that if you lied to a person about Christianity then that person would convert and be saved, would you lie to her or him?

Of course they would, they lie to themselves on a regular basis, isn't that what willful disbelief in scientific knowledge is?

Moderator Comment

Accusing people of lying to themselves is uncivil. Please refrain from such inflammatory remarks in the future.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[MuffMaYne]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

If the sky was made of skittles, if your face wasn't a face, if bottles were made of berries...If's don't matter.

[Jagella]

No one can be converted to the truth by a lie...they can only be converted to the lie. Neither can we be saved by our own choice to believe something as salvation is only by grace from GOD through faith in Christ...a process in which there can be no lie.

So you assert without proof that your religious claims must be true? Defining truth as what you believe is untruthful because you offer mere faith as truth. Faith is not truth and is often an impediment to finding truth.

There is no need to lie, ie, do evil, for a greater good...if they are under grace nothing you do can stop their redemption and if they are not under the promise of election nothing you do can create it.

I see you deny free will. If those Christians who espouse free will are right, then what you're claiming here is false. Otherwise, the free-will Christians are wrong. Either way there is error in Christianity.

Why not give up religion? I did, and it was one of the best things I've ever done. I'll take the truth over the sweetest lies because those sweet lies inevitably sour as the truth is revealed.

[Mithrae]

Lying to do the Bible god's will may not be as unorthodox as you might think. . . .


The Bible tells us in Romans 3:7--8:

If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?

The quote in context is as follows:

• Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) 6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may comeâ€�? Their condemnation is just.

Paul clearly and unequivocally condemns people who think in terms of doing evil so that 'good' may come of it.

Having already condemned the Watchtower group as "lying" for using material out of context, and then doing precisely the same thing yourself, it seems that by your own terms you are lying in order gain converts for your point of view. Perhaps this attitude of yours has some influence your eagerness to believe that others do likewise?

[Mithrae]

Martin Luther said:

What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.

This quote seems very difficult to confirm as written. All verbatim citations of it I've found are attributed to a 1978 book by philosopher Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice In Public and Private Life‎. Bok in turn attributes it to a late 19th century publication (1880-1891) by Mark Lenz, editor of a collection of correspondence of Philip of Hesse entitled Briefwechsel Landgraf Philips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer. It seems that in 1540 Philip had entered into a bigamous marriage and (presumably needing his political support, and the bible not explicitly condemning bigamy) Luther and others had reluctantly sanctioned it. When a broader scandal erupted from the matter, Luther allegedly advised Philip to deny that he had committed bigamy.

However I've been unable to confirm the quote as written. A poster on the Snopes message board provided a link to an online version of the 19th century source in the Harvard University library (page 373 of Volume 1), but it's behind a paywall and in German in any case. That same poster also provided a screenshot of the relevant passage, which is used on some other sites I encountered (eg. Wikiquotes). I don't know enough German to even decipher the terrible font enough to put it through Google translate, however two other posters on the Snopes message board provided translations as follows:

"Wouldn't that be an advice, that something like that would be thrown into discussion, and whether he was called on it, should he say that he had well discussed it, but didn't come to an conclusion? And he should keep it secret. What would it matter, if one would tell a good strong lie for the better and for the sake of the christian churches? Another advice would be that one would stuff the people's mouth, that he sends R away within four weeks, and takes the other one to him, and would live well with her, so everybody would say that there is nothing about it, and it (maybe: The marriage) would be broken. If that shouldn't help, he wouldn't know other advice."

I don't know if anyone is still interested in this, but fwiw, here's my translation of the passage from the Eisenach protocols above- it's a bit more colloquial, but perhaps thus easier to understand, than Don Enrico's:

"How would it be, if this [second marriage] came up for discussion, and if he [Philip] were challenged, he would say, that he had indeed considered it, but in the end did not go through with it? And he should otherwise keep quiet. What does it matter, if, for the sake of the good and the Christian church, one tells a good strong lie! And furthermore, to shut the mouths of the people, he should put N [this refers to Philip's second wife Margarethe von der Saale, perhaps a typo for "M"] away for four weeks, and take the other [his first wife Christine of Saxony] back and make good with her; then everyone would say, that there was nothing in it; and thus [their objections] would be broken. If that doesn't help, then he [Luther] saw no hope."

The first part of these translations is likewise confirmed by the 1911 work by Preserved Smith in The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, who likewise cites Lenz as his source:

Is it not a good plan to say that the bigamy had been discussed and should not Philip say that he had indeed debated the matter, but had not yet come to a decision ? All else must be kept quiet. What is it, if for the good and sake of the Christian Church, one should tell a good, strong lie ?

Of particular note:
A > The suggestion that God would "accept" such a lie is absent from this paragraph and elsewhere in Smith's work; Smith suggests that Luther was advising it as the lesser evil (especially if the truth eventually put Philip into a position of divorcing one of his wives), which God would forgive
B > This clearly is not suggested as a general principle for Philip to follow, let alone all Christians

It seems that this is yet another quote taken out of context - by your standards a lie, though I would not use so harsh a term



(Also interesting is C > That 19th century collection edited by Mark Lenz is the sole and earliest source I have found, for private correspondence from more than three hundred years earlier. I wonder if such a source would be accepted as evidence if this were an event in the life of Jesus, for example?)

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 14 by Mithrae]

The quote in context is as follows:
Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) 6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come�? Their condemnation is just.

That's not the context I quoted from. The online article I quoted is Lying for Jesus.

Paul clearly and unequivocally condemns people who think in terms of doing evil so that 'good' may come of it.

Clearly and unequivocally? I read that passage at least four times since you posted it, and I'm still not sure what it means. If you think that it's so clear, then ask people at random what they think it says. Like most people who read the Bible, they'll contradict each other if they can even hazard a guess as to what it means. The Bible is very confusing.

Having already condemned the Watchtower group as "lying" for using material out of context...

When I posted that comment I didn't realize that I needed to explain that deliberately and knowingly taking something out of context is deceitful. It's entirely possible for a person to make an honest mistake if she or he takes a quotation out of context especially when quoting the confusing Bible. The Watchtower deliberately misquotes people. That's why I say that they are lying.

... it seems that by your own terms you are lying in order gain converts for your point of view.

You are arguing a red herring here. How dishonest you imagine me to be gets you nowhere in proving that Christians do not lie when trying to convert people. You may wish to read the opening post to see what the topic of the discussion is.

[ttruscott]

No one can be converted to the truth by a lie...they can only be converted to the lie. Neither can we be saved by our own choice to believe something as salvation is only by grace from GOD through faith in Christ...a process in which there can be no lie.

So you assert without proof that your religious claims must be true?

I quote church doctrine with this contention and of course I believe what I believe is true or I wouldn't believe it.

There is no need to lie, ie, do evil, for a greater good...if they are under grace nothing you do can stop their redemption and if they are not under the promise of election nothing you do can create it.

I see you deny free will. If those Christians who espouse free will are right, then what you're claiming here is false. Otherwise, the free-will Christians are wrong. Either way there is error in Christianity.

There are many errors in Christian doctrine as I often point out. I do not deny free will, in fact I champion our free will but I do not think we have free will unencumbered by any force here on earth. Our free will was before we chose to be sinful and enslaved to sin pre-earth, and will be in evidence again after we are redeemed and our enslavening addiction to sin is cured by our rebirth in the Spirit. Our enslavement to sin, our dna and our being under the sway of family and cultural values all deny our free (without coercion or constraint) will here on earth.

Again, my contention that only those under grace are saved is a Biblical assertion and nothing new in discussions of Christian doctrine. A bible study of this topic will do your argument wonders.

Why not give up religion? I did, and it was one of the best things I've ever done. I'll take the truth over the sweetest lies because those sweet lies inevitably sour as the truth is revealed.

Ahhh, what a nice bit of preaching...

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 17 by ttruscott]

If your claims are based on your religion's doctrine, then make sure you explain that to people. Don't mislead them making them think that you have good reasons and solid evidence to back your claims.

Thank you for admitting that Christian beliefs are often in error.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 17 by ttruscott]

If your claims are based on your religion's doctrine, then make sure you explain that to people. Don't mislead them making them think that you have good reasons and solid evidence to back your claims.

Thank you for admitting that Christian beliefs are often in error.

I doubt that is what ttruscott meant.


At any rate, My claims are not based on dogma. My claim is that every natural explanation of the resurrection proclamation which I have studied is, by historical standards, terribly inadequate.

Now, staring at the insoluble complexity of early Christianity, a rational person can take two positions:

1) Have faith that, despite our confusion, there MUST be a natural explanation, even if we may never find it.

2) Turn toward an explanation that meets all criteria of history, except one: natural plausibility. But natural plausibility only means "what is natural".

Some have taken option 1. I would find them respectable if they admitted that it was a faith option. But they don't.

I have chosen to take the option which actually explains the data, though it enters into a sphere where plausibility and probability or NA.

[bluethread]

Since I am not an evangelical, I do not concern myself about converting anybody. That is not my job.