Lying for Atheism

[StuartJ]

Christians will lie for Jesus.

With the humble handful here, I have seen what I submit is dishonest behaviour in pretending not to understand a question, or cluttering a post so others won't read it, or omitting parts of quotes that don't fit beliefs, and numerous other dodges and deceptions.

As an Atheist, I openly declare that I understand the biblical (and possibly not even Jewish) deity Yahweh to be as mythological as Isis or any other version of "God".

But, should I discover evidence that yes indeed Yahweh is the original universe-creating, planet-flooding, son-begetting capital G God of the entire cosmos and beyond ...

Will I, as a moral-compassless sinner who has foregone his place with Jesus to indulge in a life of carnal pleasure, fail to mention that glorious fact publically ...?

[Jagella]

StuartJ wrote:

Christians will lie for Jesus.

This is a hasty generalization and, as such, a fallacy. You would have to know all Christians past and present to be able to make such a statement.

Do you know of any Christians who would not lie "for Jesus" if they knew that lying would convert unbelievers?

And if you're concerned about hasty generalizations, then consider what the Psalmist said: Psalm 14:1:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.� They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

If we employ your logic above, the writer of this Bible passage would need to know all people past and present who say there is no God to justifiably make such a statement.

So thank you for helping us all to recognize logical fallacies in the Bible.

[Tart]

The very first quote you have from Paul is totally distorted... We want to talk about honesty?

StuartJ wrote:

Christians will lie for Jesus.

This is a hasty generalization and, as such, a fallacy. You would have to know all Christians past and present to be able to make such a statement.

It started with the the probable inventor of Christianity:

• Paul, in his zealot exaltation, admits and justifies, on Jesuit principles, the preaching of falsehood, and feels really aggrieved that honest men should take exceptions to such mendacious propaganda:
  
  "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" (Rom. 3.7)

Here is the entire passage..

"3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:

“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.�[a]

5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?� 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result�? Their condemnation is just!" (Romans 3)

Note* "someone might argue..." then he say what you quoted him as talking about himself, and then condemns this behaviour that you say he supports.. "Their condemnation is just!"

Right off the bat... You are distorting Paul's words, like blatantly.. It is hard to believe someone could misinterpret this as bad as you have.. If im understanding it correct...

[Tart]

[Replying to post 10 by RedEye]

At any rate, im trying to get your source for all these quotes. Id apreciate a reference. I have a feeling these quotes compiled are distorted and misleading, but even if they are not it is something i think is important to research...

The best source i think you are getting them from is the book "In the name of" by Christopher Reyes....

It is very strange though, i cant get any more information on this author whatsoever... There is nothing on him, its almost like he doesnt exist... Nothing i can find at all, and certainly nothing in any scholarly way...

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 10 by RedEye]

Id apreciate a reference.

They were provided:

(Rom. 3.7)

(2 Cor. 12.15-16)

(1 Cor. 9.25)

(1 Cor. 9.19-23).

(2 Cor. 11.8).

– St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)

– Bishop Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.

– Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

– John Chrysostom (5th century Bishop of Constantinople), Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

- Faustus (Manichean bishop) 5th century

- Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuits

– Martin Luther (Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I.)

– Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy.

[StuartJ]

Apparently I do lie ...

the atheist actually knows that God exists. They have simply suppressed the truth of God in unrighteousness. They don’t want God to exist in the same way a bank robber does not want a police officer to exist. He knows he exists, but doesn’t want him to exist. They have suppressed that truth, and they live a lie.

https://www.livingwaters.com/bankruptcy-of-atheism/

I never knew that ....

Mark Spence, Vice-President of Outreach, Living Waters has said so in his article "The Bankruptcy of Atheism" ...

And he uses HIS version of THE Bible to back up his assertions.

Not that his THE Bible actually says in so many words what Mr. Spence says it's saying, but when you're a vice-president of an organisation like Outreach, Living Waters, whatever you CHOOSE your THE Bible to be saying is really what it IS saying.

So there we have it ...

I have lied to promote the cause of Atheism ...

Or was it to wallow in my personal unrighteousness ...?

Former assistant pastor Spence wasn't very clear on this and a whole bunch of other stuff.

But he and his wife Laura do homeschool their five (yes five) children.

And, for a fee of $150.00, one can join his Online School of Biblical Evangelism.

Now I've been caught out as a liar, I better send him my money ....

[RedEye]

The very first quote you have from Paul is totally distorted... We want to talk about honesty?

StuartJ wrote:

Christians will lie for Jesus.

This is a hasty generalization and, as such, a fallacy. You would have to know all Christians past and present to be able to make such a statement.

It started with the the probable inventor of Christianity:

• Paul, in his zealot exaltation, admits and justifies, on Jesuit principles, the preaching of falsehood, and feels really aggrieved that honest men should take exceptions to such mendacious propaganda:
  
  "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" (Rom. 3.7)

Here is the entire passage..

"3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:

“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.�[a]

5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?� 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result�? Their condemnation is just!" (Romans 3)

Note* "someone might argue..." then he say what you quoted him as talking about himself, and then condemns this behaviour that you say he supports.. "Their condemnation is just!"

Right off the bat... You are distorting Paul's words, like blatantly.. It is hard to believe someone could misinterpret this as bad as you have.. If im understanding it correct...

I agree that, in context, Paul is actually censuring other Christians who say "Let us do evil, that good may come". (The point being that Paul would not need to have done this censuring unless other Christians were behaving badly, ie. lying and worse). One down and about a dozen others to go.

[Tart]

The very first quote you have from Paul is totally distorted... We want to talk about honesty?

StuartJ wrote:

Christians will lie for Jesus.

This is a hasty generalization and, as such, a fallacy. You would have to know all Christians past and present to be able to make such a statement.

It started with the the probable inventor of Christianity:

• Paul, in his zealot exaltation, admits and justifies, on Jesuit principles, the preaching of falsehood, and feels really aggrieved that honest men should take exceptions to such mendacious propaganda:
  
  "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" (Rom. 3.7)

Here is the entire passage..

"3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:

“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.�[a]

5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?� 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result�? Their condemnation is just!" (Romans 3)

Note* "someone might argue..." then he say what you quoted him as talking about himself, and then condemns this behaviour that you say he supports.. "Their condemnation is just!"

Right off the bat... You are distorting Paul's words, like blatantly.. It is hard to believe someone could misinterpret this as bad as you have.. If im understanding it correct...

I agree that, in context, Paul is actually censuring other Christians who say "Let us do evil, that good may come". (The point being that Paul would not need to have done this censuring unless other Christians were behaving badly, ie. lying and worse). One down and about a dozen others to go.

This says nothing about Paul censuring other Christians, and nothing about Christian lying to promote some religion. Personally i think this is continuing to show how you are distorting this passage.

Paul also wrote in 1 Corinthians 15, that if Christianity isnt true (the Resurrection), no one should believe it.. He actually says, if it is a lie then his preaching is useless and so is the faith.... I have read the New Testament like 4 times, and nothing led me to believe what you are suggesting, that they are pushing lies. And more so, from investigating their epistles, i was led to believe they genuinely believe in these things.

Where did you get these quotes? And what are you suggesting the disciples lied about, like Paul, what did he lie about?


"it is nearly universally accepted by historians that the disciples genuinely believed that Jesus had actually been Resurrected and that they had encountered him. For instance, well-known skeptical scholar Bart Ehrman writes: “It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.�
http://summitrduinstitute.com/articles/ ... urrection/

[RedEye]

I agree that, in context, Paul is actually censuring other Christians who say "Let us do evil, that good may come". (The point being that Paul would not need to have done this censuring unless other Christians were behaving badly, ie. lying and worse). One down and about a dozen others to go.

This says nothing about Paul censuring other Christians, and nothing about Christian lying to promote some religion. Personally i think this is continuing to show how you are distorting this passage.

Then please tell us what you think Paul is saying because that is the only way I can interpret it.

Paul also wrote in 1 Corinthians 15, that if Christianity isnt true (the Resurrection), no one should believe it.. He actually says, if it is a lie then his preaching is useless and so is the faith....

But that is a different issue entirely. Paul may have believed the core of what he was (authentically) writing. The issue here is whether he would utilize lying to promote the message which he believed in. He has admitted as much by telling us that he said whatever he needed to depending on if you were a Jew or a gentile. He played whatever role was required to meet his ends.

I have read the New Testament like 4 times, and nothing led me to believe what you are suggesting, that they are pushing lies. And more so, from investigating their epistles, i was led to believe they genuinely believe in these things.

That you were "led to believe" is no great surprise. That is the purpose of gospels, after all. The real question is whether a skeptical person can accept such outrageous stories. Why did the gospel of Mark end up with four different endings before too long? What is authentic and what isn't? Someone had to be meddling with the texts. Let me give you one small example of the dishonesty. Take Mark 14 and Jesus's prayer at Gethsemane. All the disciples were asleep. How could the author of Mark possibly know what Jesus prayed for? There are numerous such instances in Mark where the apparently omniscient author knows things that he can't possibly know. It's obvious fiction penned by a fiction writer.

Where did you get these quotes?

You already have the source references.

And what are you suggesting the disciples lied about, like Paul, what did he lie about?

That was in my earlier post. Paul admitted to using whatever means necessary to convince people.

"it is nearly universally accepted by historians that the disciples genuinely believed that Jesus had actually been Resurrected and that they had encountered him. For instance, well-known skeptical scholar Bart Ehrman writes: “It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.�
http://summitrduinstitute.com/articles/ ... urrection/

It is not historical fact because some person says that it is. Dead and rotting corpses do not come back to life. Whilst it may be true that some people came to believe the fanciful stories, so what? People believe all kinds of nonsensical things, eg. astrology, homeopathy, alien abduction, etc etc.. Do we care what people believe or what they can provide evidence for?

[Tart]

I agree that, in context, Paul is actually censuring other Christians who say "Let us do evil, that good may come". (The point being that Paul would not need to have done this censuring unless other Christians were behaving badly, ie. lying and worse). One down and about a dozen others to go.

This says nothing about Paul censuring other Christians, and nothing about Christian lying to promote some religion. Personally i think this is continuing to show how you are distorting this passage.

Then please tell us what you think Paul is saying because that is the only way I can interpret it.

Paul also wrote in 1 Corinthians 15, that if Christianity isnt true (the Resurrection), no one should believe it.. He actually says, if it is a lie then his preaching is useless and so is the faith....

But that is a different issue entirely. Paul may have believed the core of what he was (authentically) writing. The issue here is whether he would utilize lying to promote the message which he believed in. He has admitted as much by telling us that he said whatever he needed to depending on if you were a Jew or a gentile. He played whatever role was required to meet his ends.

I have read the New Testament like 4 times, and nothing led me to believe what you are suggesting, that they are pushing lies. And more so, from investigating their epistles, i was led to believe they genuinely believe in these things.

That you were "led to believe" is no great surprise. That is the purpose of gospels, after all. The real question is whether a skeptical person can accept such outrageous stories. Why did the gospel of Mark end up with four different endings before too long? What is authentic and what isn't? Someone had to be meddling with the texts. Let me give you one small example of the dishonesty. Take Mark 14 and Jesus's prayer at Gethsemane. All the disciples were asleep. How could the author of Mark possibly know what Jesus prayed for? There are numerous such instances in Mark where the apparently omniscient author knows things that he can't possibly know. It's obvious fiction penned by a fiction writer.

Where did you get these quotes?

You already have the source references.

And what are you suggesting the disciples lied about, like Paul, what did he lie about?

That was in my earlier post. Paul admitted to using whatever means necessary to convince people.

"it is nearly universally accepted by historians that the disciples genuinely believed that Jesus had actually been Resurrected and that they had encountered him. For instance, well-known skeptical scholar Bart Ehrman writes: “It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.�
http://summitrduinstitute.com/articles/ ... urrection/

It is not historical fact because some person says that it is. Dead and rotting corpses do not come back to life. Whilst it may be true that some people came to believe the fanciful stories, so what? People believe all kinds of nonsensical things, eg. astrology, homeopathy, alien abduction, etc etc.. Do we care what people believe or what they can provide evidence for?

I dont think the presupposition that divine acts cant happen, is a valid position to assume. I think it would be far more reasonable to assume a neutral position, and withhold judgement on whether "dead corpses can come back to life"...

So id still like to know, what you are suggesting Paul lied about... Or about what any of these men lied about that you have quoted...

What exactly are you suggesting is the lie?

And i understand that you have the quotes referenced, im simply asking you where you got these quotes... I mean, lets be honest, you didnt read all of these references and then pick these quotes out of 100's of pages and compiled them here... Right? Like honestly, that is... Where did you get them?

[RedEye]

I dont think the presupposition that divine acts cant happen, is a valid position to assume. I think it would be far more reasonable to assume a neutral position, and withhold judgement on whether "dead corpses can come back to life"...

Why? I prefer truth, ie. what accords with reality.

So id still like to know, what you are suggesting Paul lied about...

Already answered.

Or about what any of these men lied about that you have quoted...

What exactly are you suggesting is the lie?

It's not one big lie, it's a whole series of them. The fabrication of the story of Jesus (the details expand progressively through the synoptic gospels which is classic myth-making), the ham-fisted attempts to link Jesus to OT scripture, the alleged miracles, the omniscient story-telling perspective, the borrowing from other pagan myths, the nonsense about every early church figure and his dog ending up a martyr, the interpolations and outright forgery. It just goes on and on.

And i understand that you have the quotes referenced, im simply asking you where you got these quotes... I mean, lets be honest, you didnt read all of these references and then pick these quotes out of 100's of pages and compiled them here... Right? Like honestly, that is... Where did you get them?

What is important, where I got them from or whether they are valid?