Why do Christians tell Lies?

[Walker]

Why do socialists tell lies?
Why do communists tell lies?
Why do government officials tell lies?

they're human and they use language.

-Imp

Don't forget about the lies of the women who place emotions and feelings such as JOY, before truth, as many a man will attest.

(Although if you don't lie about that truth, you're not likely to be thanked by a woman).

[ThinkOfOne]

You appear to be defining "lie" in exactly the same way as IC. You both appear to think that untrue statements are "lies". But they aren't. A lie is an untrue statement that attempts to deceive. Fictions are not lies (they don't attempt to deceive). Mistakes are not lies, they may deceive, but don't attempt to do so (if they were lies, every scientist, who inevitably makes mistaken statements, would be a liar).

Doubtless some "Christians" do lie, motivated by social or financial rewards to misrepresent their true beliefs.

Here Adrienne Rich chips in, in a perspicacious essay.

https://www.worldofphilosophy.net/post/ ... s-on-lying

A lie is an untrue statement that attempts to deceive. Fictions are not lies (they don't attempt to deceive). Mistakes are not lies, they may deceive, but don't attempt to do so

Seems overly simplistic. See the article at the following link:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/
I only skimmed it, but the point is that it's much, much more complex than what you've presented.

Consider disinformation as an example. Let's say an individual is mistaken and believes the disinformation, the spreads it. Is the disinformation that the individual spre.ads not still a lie?

Doubtless some "Christians" do lie, motivated by social or financial rewards to misrepresent their true beliefs.

Consider the "disinformation" example above.

Christianity is a system of belief that is built upon a foundation of lies. This is demonstrable using only the Bible as a source. That Christians believe the lies is irrelevant.

The Stanford site defines lie as

to make a believed-false statement to another person with the intention that the other person believe that statement to be truel

Unsurprisingly, this is similar to my definition, although it would allow for the case in the Camus novel where the prisoner thinks he is giving the interrogators false information, but it turns out to be true. That seems like a distinction without a difference. Of course the moral culpability (or non culpability) of the person making the true statement that he believes to be false is identical to that of a liar, but the case is so rare, and the results so different from those of a false statement, that we need hardly consider it. Also, the prisoner trying to protect his fellow traveler by giving the police true information (which he thinks is false) doesn't seem morally culpable to me.

In any event, it's irrelevant to whether Christians are lying. If "disinformation" is always a "lie" then all the great scientists of the past are equally liars. They said the Earth is the center of the universe! Time is a constant! What liars!

None of us knows whether many of the things we say are "misinformation" or not. How could we? But if we believe our statements to be true, we are not liars.


In addition, incorrectly calling entire groups of people "liars" constitutes bigotry. Perhaps you should avoid it.

The Stanford site defines lie as

to make a believed-false statement to another person with the intention that the other person believe that statement to be truel

Unsurprisingly, this is similar to my definition

You are mistaken. Evidently you either failed to read through the rest of the article OR you did not understand it. The "definition" that you quoted is what the article termed "traditional definition". Then most of the rest of the article proceeded to explain the shortcomings of such a "definition". As I pointed out "it's much, much more complex than what you've presented". It's as if you found the "traditional definition" and then stopped reading.

In any event, it's irrelevant to whether Christians are lying. If "disinformation" is always a "lie" then all the great scientists of the past are equally liars. They said the Earth is the center of the universe! Time is a constant! What liars!

None of us knows whether many of the things we say are "misinformation" or not.

You are mistaken here as well. Following is the definition of "disinformation" from Oxford Learning:
"false information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media".

For you to apply it to "scientists" of the past who believed that the Earth was the center of the universe shows a failure on your part to make the distinction between "disinformation" and "misinformation". Or is it that you don't understand the difference?

n addition, incorrectly calling entire groups of people "liars" constitutes bigotry. Perhaps you should avoid it.

You are mistaken here as well. For one, I never actually wrote that. For another, you seem to fail to understand what is and what is not "bigotry".

You've repeatedly shown a failure to understand much of anything thus far. Is this typical of you?

[Walker]

Re: evidence:

I think that if you did a survey of Christians and asked them if their attraction to Christianity was based on ego defense and delusions of grandeur, rather than soul searching, you would get a negative response. Then you could label all those Christians liars, and the survey would be your evidence.

The previous illustration of hard won simplicity without quotes that you ignored or perhaps didn't even notice in favour of your projections, is the Amish.

Another example is the world-wide persecution of Christians. In some places Christians are even persecuted to death. Researching for proof other than atheists' projections is easy with the internet.

[Alexiev]

The Stanford site defines lie as

to make a believed-false statement to another person with the intention that the other person believe that statement to be truel

Unsurprisingly, this is similar to my definition

You are mistaken. Evidently you either failed to read through the rest of the article OR you did not understand it. The "definition" that you quoted is what the article termed "traditional definition". Then most of the rest of the article proceeded to explain the shortcomings of such a "definition". As I pointed out "it's much, much more complex than what you've presented". It's as if you found the "traditional definition" and then stopped reading.

In any event, it's irrelevant to whether Christians are lying. If "disinformation" is always a "lie" then all the great scientists of the past are equally liars. They said the Earth is the center of the universe! Time is a constant! What liars!

None of us knows whether many of the things we say are "misinformation" or not.

You are mistaken here as well. Following is the definition of "disinformation" from Oxford Learning:
"false information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media".

For you to apply it to "scientists" of the past who believed that the Earth was the center of the universe shows a failure on your part to make the distinction between "disinformation" and "misinformation". Or is it that you don't understand the difference?

n addition, incorrectly calling entire groups of people "liars" constitutes bigotry. Perhaps you should avoid it.

You are mistaken here as well. For one, I never actually wrote that. For another, you seem to fail to understand what is and what is not "bigotry".

You've repeatedly shown a failure to understand much of anything thus far. Is this typical of you?

I'll admit to understanding "disinformation" differently from how you are using it. However, using your definition, faithful Christians are not spreading disinformation. Therefore, you are a liar as well as a bigot, using your own definitions.

I read the Stanford article, and stand by my position. I think it's ridiculous to claim that a true statement which the speaker thinks is false is a "lie". Stanford writers may call it such, but in normal parlance, that is a misuse of the word.

In addition, the article clearly states:

The dictionary definition of deception is as follows: “To cause to believe what is false” (OED 1989). There are several problems with this definition, however (Barnes 1997; Mahon 2007; Carson 2010). The principal problem is that it is too broad in scope. On this definition, mere appearances can deceive, such as when a white object looks red in a certain light (Faulkner, 2013). Furthermore, it is possible for people to inadvertently deceive others. If Steffi believes that there is a talk on David Lewis and the Christians on Friday, and she tells Paul that “There is a talk on Lewis and the Christians on Friday,” and as a result Paul believes that there is a talk on C. S. Lewis and the Christians on Friday, then Steffi has deceived Paul. Also, it is possible for people to mistakenly deceive other people. If Steffi mistakenly believes that there is not a philosophy talk on Friday, and she tells Paul that there is not a philosophy talk on Friday, and he believes her, then then Steffi has deceived Paul.

Although some philosophers hold that deceiving may be inadvertent or mistaken (Demos 1960; Fuller 1976; Chisholm and Feehan 1977; Adler 1997; Gert 2005), many philosophers have argued that it is not possible to deceive inadvertently or mistakenly (Linsky 1970; van Horne 1981; Barnes 1997; Carson 2010; Saul 2012; Faulkner 2013). They hold that deception, like lying, is intentional. They reserve term “mislead” to cover cases of causing false beliefs either intentionally or unintentionally (Carson 2010, 47).

So, using the Stanford definition of lying, Christians are not practicing "deception". although they may be "misleading" their listeners. Indeed, the article clearly states that the speaker must know his statements are false before he can be accurately accused of lying.

According to the Dictionary, a bigot is

a person who is intolerant or hateful toward people whose race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., is different from the person's own

.

You wrote:

A high percentage of Christians tell lies about Christian beliefs because more than a few of their foundational beliefs either completely lack evidence OR are demonstrably false. Yet most of them believe that they must have absolute faith that those beliefs are true in order for them to be "saved", to receive eternal life, to live in the Kingdom of God, etc. As such, for them NEITHER solid evidence NOR sound reasoning are required to hold strong beliefs.

Clearly, faithful Christians are not "lying" by either the dictionary definition of the word or by Stanford's more complicated definition. Stating things one believes to be true does not constitute "lying" by any definition of the word. Therefore the "because" clause is nonsensical. A lack of evidence is not sufficient to prove a lie, and neither is falsity (however "demonstrable"). By incorrectly tarring "a high percentage of Christians" with the emotionally laden label of "liar", you are clearly demonstrating your bigotry. If believing things that are false and then stating one's beliefs constitutes lying, 100% of all humans are liars. Including you.

[accelafine]

According to the Dictionary, a bigot is

a person who is intolerant or hateful toward people whose race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., is different from the person's own

.

That's not the meaning of the word 'bigot' at all. Maybe in your bs online woke American McDickshinry, but not in a real dictionary (i.e. pre woke mind virus). If you used a real dictionary you would also know that the word is 'towards', not 'toward'.

[Alexiev]

According to the Dictionary, a bigot is

a person who is intolerant or hateful toward people whose race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., is different from the person's own

.

That's not the meaning of the word 'bigot' at all. Maybe in your bs online woke American McDickshinry, but not in a real dictionary (i.e. pre woke mind virus). If you used a real dictionary you would also know that the word is 'towards', not 'toward'.

The Brits can thank us Americans for preserving their language. Were it not for us, you would probably be speaking German.

I suppose you Brits think "while" should be spelled "whilst", too. At least you labour (sic) under that delusion.

[accelafine]

According to the Dictionary, a bigot is .

That's not the meaning of the word 'bigot' at all. Maybe in your bs online woke American McDickshinry, but not in a real dictionary (i.e. pre woke mind virus). If you used a real dictionary you would also know that the word is 'towards', not 'toward'.

The Brits can thank us Americans for preserving their language. Were it not for us, you would probably be speaking German.

I suppose you Brits think "while" should be spelled "whilst", too. At least you labour (sic) under that delusion.

What's a Brit? Why do you think I'm whatever a 'Brit' is? Why would they be speaking German? What do you have against the German language? Are you a 'bigot'?

[promethean75]

Whilst i don't disagree with Alexiev, i believe had the U.S. not got involved, the bloody brits would be speaking Russian, not German.

[accelafine]

Whilst i don't disagree with Alexiev, i believe had the U.S. not got involved, the bloody brits would be speaking Russian, not German.

Doesn't even make sense. Germans still speak German. Japanese still speak Japanese. In fact most countries CHOOSE to speak English as well as their own because it's so useful.

[Dubious]

Simple! Without a multitude of lies Christianity wouldn't exist, have no basis to exist, which, by no means is true only for Christianity. But that was only the beginning. Christians exterminating Christians was merely a case of the lies of the former attempting to eradicate the lies of the latter. In no religion was god ever great! So far, humans haven't managed to make god great.

[Dubious]

The Brits can thank us Americans for preserving their language. Were it not for us, you would probably be speaking German.

Not likely, even if the Germans had won. In any event, had there been a high probability of the Germans winning the war, that great British lion Winston Churchill would have immediately applied for U.S. citizenship.

[Fairy]

5 Common Lies Christians Believe and How to Be Free


Five common lies the enemy uses against followers of Jesus and how to be free:


Lie #1: “You will never be good enough, so don’t bother trying.”

Believing this lie leads us to want to give up. Falling short of our own expectations or the expectations of others is a reality. We combat this lie by trusting God’s righteousness protects us from the voice of the accuser. We can live right from a position of being made right in Christ.

Lie #2: “You don’t have anything of value to offer others.” < > ( IC's classic belief he would tell to others. )

Believing this lie leads to self-doubt. We combat this lie by trusting God’s plan and purpose for our lives. Remember, we are God’s masterpiece — his workmanship. We are created in Christ Jesus for good works. He has given us what we need for wherever he’s placed us.

Lie #3: “Lying is ok as long it protects you or others from the painful truth.”

Believing this lie leads to a habit of lying. Some people don’t even realize lying has become a way of life. We combat this lie by practicing truth. Living with a clear conscience leads to peace and freedom. Practicing truth means if it’s not true, don’t believe it, don’t think it, and don’t speak it.

Lie #4: “You’re a hypocrite.”

Believing this lie shows up in judging or criticizing ourselves when we miss the mark. We must combat this lie by trusting God’s word to renew our minds. We may not be where we want to be but thank God we’re not where we used to be.

Lie #5: “They’re a hypocrite.”

Believing this lie shows up in judging or criticizing others when they miss the mark. We must combat this lie by committing to standing firm on truth and standing together with grace. Paul said, “Always be humble and gentle. Be patient with each other, making allowance for each other’s faults because of your love” (Ephesians 4:2).

We’re in a battle. We have an enemy whose primary strategy is distorting the truth to disorient our soul. The weapon of choice is lies. The problem with lies is they do not always appear as deception. However, unaddressed deception can lead to confusion. Confusion causes instability. And instability can create anxiety, fear, and worry because of something that may or may not be true.

[Fairy]

The TRUTH is...no one can prove God exists. And no one can prove God doesn't exist.
So what does that leave? It leaves NOT-Knowing. Simply this mysterious UNKNOWING Mysterious Presence, without a concept, without a name tag attached.

To assume God exists is a lie.
To assume God does not exist is a lie.

GOD is simply an idea.

Ideas believed can be nothing more or nothing less, or other than, just pure empty ( BE(lie)F )

An idea manifests as a belief...To Be the Lie..and then notice also the F ..which can mean Female Or Woman. Notice the word female and woman contains both the sexes conjoined as one. There is no separation there. Notice also that the space in which separates words from other words, is nothing but empty blank space. Separation is pure story, a belief in this conception. In reality nothing is separate, reality is one seamless totality, one without a second. The secondary conceptual reality is an illusion, it's the Lie. The Be the Lie.

Conclusion: there is no truth because there is no other than truth. And the truth will set you free. ( F ) symbolises both Freedom and Fe/male. There's not two things there, but one conjoined, inseparable one.

If God was/is you're idea, then you are God...You are the one who is aware and knowing the idea, knowing the concept, which is within you, and not external to you...it's quite a simple realisation, really. There is nothing more to God than that simply realisation.

[Fairy]

Another interesting fact about yourself is you existed even when you did not know you existed. That not-knowing self is your real and true self.

So, that's the truth of the matter, it doesn't actually know it exists.

That which knows it exists is a secondary overlay upon the unknown. The secondary overlay is human language, and it's not even human language, it's just simply known as a concept by no one. No one being this direct unknowing, that is prior to conceptual language.

Words are simply story, and story is simply analogous to a dream, or a character within a dream, none of which is real or actual.

This is the absolute beauty and mystery of nonduality, this unknowing known.

That's what makes life really great, makes it awesome, is it's pure impenetrable mysterious not knowing.

[Alexiev]

Whilst i don't disagree with Alexiev, i believe had the U.S. not got involved, the bloody brits would be speaking Russian, not German.

Doesn't even make sense. Germans still speak German. Japanese still speak Japanese. In fact most countries CHOOSE to speak English as well as their own because it's so useful.

Countries can't talk (since we're being persnickety about language). Why has English become (paradoxically) the lingua franca for much of the world? British colonialism in India helped -- but for Europe, Korea and Japan America's influence after WWII and status as a world power made English "so useful".