Question about lying.

[DetlefK]

For the crusades, the Vatican rationalized that killing in the name of Christianity is not a sin. They basically amended the Ten Commandments.

Is there some kind of official position as to when lying is not a sin?

For the atheists: No, I'm not talking about how religion is one big lie yaddayaddayadda. Shut up. I mean a real-life declaration about something like tricking pagans in negotiations or willfully telling children a lie and revealing it to them later when they are adult.

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Plenty of info on this.

"Augustine answered that the act of lying is your own sin, for which you would be culpable, but the act of murder is the sin of the other person, for which you would not be culpable. Each human person is bound by the eternal moral law to avoid sin. And neither is it justifiable for you to commit a lesser sin, so that someone else will not commit a greater sin. [Saint Augustine, On Lying, n. 13.]"


“On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 7:14): ‘Be not willing to make any manner of lie.’

“I answer that, An action that is naturally evil in respect of its genus can by no means be good and lawful, since in order for an action to be good it must be right in every respect: because good results from a complete cause, while evil results from any single defect, as Dionysius asserts (Div. Nom. iv). Now a lie is evil in respect of its genus, since it is an action bearing on undue matter. For as words are naturally signs of intellectual acts, it is unnatural and undue for anyone to signify by words something that is not in his mind. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7) that ‘lying is in itself evil and to be shunned, while truthfulness is good and worthy of praise.’ Therefore every lie is a sin, as also Augustine declares (Contra Mend. i).” [Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 110, A. 3.]


So, there's a fairly reputable but not exactly universal Christian take on it.

Thanks for the broad brush 'shut up' in the OP too. That's awesome.

[defacto7]

101. Just to add a more recent quote.....

"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."

Martin Luther

From the transcript of the Eisenach assembly of July 1540.
Also The Life and Letters of Martin Luther by Preserved Smith, Houghton Mifflin, 2nd edition, 1911, p. 381

[edhopper]

2. So you are asking if anyone knows

when God says it is okay to lie?

[hrmjustin]

3. A lie is a lie no matter what human institution say about it.

[edhopper]

6. What about telling children the stories of Adam and Eve

or Noah and not telling them they are imaginary tales?
Isn't that lying?

[hrmjustin]

7. No. Either they believe it or it is an allegory and it is taught as such.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. I disagree - many churches will tell children the story of Noah without saying "but this isn't true"

despite the official church position being that it isn't true (though whether that story is an allegory is surely open to massive dispute - what's it an allegory of? That God might decide to destroy nearly all living things if he gets pissed off? That God could perform dangerous miracles if he wanted to?)

The Church of England, for instance, didn't present Noah to me as a allegory. I wouldn't have known the word then, but I would have understood at that age what a fable was - The Hare and the Tortoise was explicitly taught as a fable, for instance. People say it's just a story, with a message behind it. The story of Noah was just told, and it was up to us to decide that it couldn't have happened.

I would be genuinely interested to know what that story is an allegory of, to you.

[hrmjustin]

40. If Noah is just story then I would say it fits the OT version of God as being vengeful and needs to

be obeyed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. That's not the kind of view that was ever brought up as a possibility when I was young

It can be hard enough to get some Christians, in adult conversation, to admit that God undergoes a complete personality change between testaments. I feel an awful lot of Bible tales get repeated just because they're in the Bible and have bits in that are memorable for children.

[hrmjustin]

50. Well if you actually read the OT and NT it is really hard to miss the different views on God.

But most don't actually read it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. Yes, but that's the point with how the Bible is presented to children

They don't have their personal copies to browse; someone decides to read out sections of it, without context, or, especially for young children, just to retell the stories (which enables tricky bits to be left out altogether).

[hrmjustin]

62. It depends on the church and teachers but I see your point.

[cbayer]

8. Telling children stories is not the same thing as lying, imo.

At some point you either have to tell them that it is made up or that it is something believed by many people but not scientifically proven.

At some point you have to tell them about belief and faith, if that is what you are teaching them.

If you keep telling them things where this is evidence that it is not true, like creationism, then it becomes a different topic.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. So if you don't do the latter you are a liar?

"or that it is something believed by many people but not scientifically proven."

So the religious who fail to inform their children that all the crap they indoctrinated them in is 'believed by many people but not scientifically proven" are lairs, right?

[Brettongarcia]

84. In my opinion, telling children false tales, lies, is lying.

And there is much evidence that many things in religion are false. Like promises of giant physical miracles, "all" and "whatever" we "ask" (John 14.13 ff). Even Paul began to question such promises: "Do all work miracles?" "Test everything."

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Kind of hard to have a discussion with somebody who has told

all atheists to "shut up". Perhaps you might take this to the interfaith group, where telling all atheists to shut up is perfectly acceptable.

Religion is one big lie yaddayaddayadda.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

11. He does not want you barging into the conversation with your irrelevancies

We can take your "religion is a lie" as said, and you needn't natter on about it, disturbing the adults trying to have a conversation.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Ah yes the people having conversations with

their imaginary friends are the adults.

[rexcat]

16. Rather rude on the OPs part...

and immediately gives atheists a bad taste in the mouth but that seems to be the purpose of the statement. Very dismissive concerning atheists on DetkefK's and your part. You and DetlefK have something in common, lack of class and to claim you and DetkefK are "adult" is rather amusing.

I see the world with no absolutes. Sometimes it is necessary to lie or kill or do other things that are normally found in society as something not to do since it can tear at the fabric of the society. What the Catholic Church did was more like propaganda to support their less than holy position. In this case it was to dehumanize their opponents in the Crusade and to justify their barbarism. With that in mind it was wrong on the Church's part to lie. Just shows a lack of moral authority by the leadership of the RCC but there is a long history of a lack morality by the RCC leadership.

[rug]

25. Maybe you should start a thread in A&A to complain about it.

[hrmjustin]

44. he did. And he is wrong about interfaith.

[hrmjustin]

47. Classy as always.

[mr blur]

63. Don't you ever get bored with these blank posts, or is it enough of an achievement

just to make 43,000 posts in 2 years?
Nice that you have the time, of course, what with trying to avoid being offended and bringing peace and understanding to the world and everything.

I thought the idea was to say something for other people to read. Or would that not be "classy" enough for you?

[hrmjustin]

64. one could ask you the same question.

[rug]

68. Allow me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218143436#post67

[hrmjustin]

69. Thank you my friend.

I know I am not an innocent but neither is he.

[rug]

71. Like most human events, it's more a matter of integrity than innocence.

[rug]

67. Don't you ever get bored with these blank posts?

I bet this one is typical of 99% of your posts.

[Lancero]

73. Jury results for #45

On Tue Jul 29, 2014, 04:02 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Short of something interesting to read? We could put pictures in it, I know that helps you
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=143591

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Pure personal insult. A stupid personal insult to be sure, but a personal attack nonetheless.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 29, 2014, 04:13 PM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's borderline but sadly that's not clearly over the line.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I think this person can use some help in coming up with a better insult. That one was rather poor... But eh, a good insult is a rather complex thing.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alerter; it's ad hom and still against the rules as far as I know.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It is a personal attack as the poster used "you" as opposed to 'your posts', attack the message and not the messenger. The post meets the criteria for hiding it.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Short of knowing any history between these posters, these types of posts are really just taunting. Hide.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[rug]

74. Thanks for posting.

[okasha]

90. You and your clique

do not comprise "all atheists, " Warren.

Too bad your alert failed.

[Warren Stupidity]

102. my alert?

Why on earth would I alert on *anything* in this thread? It is just a disaster for your team from start to finish.

[hrmjustin]

103. lol our team went down in flames.

[Warren Stupidity]

104. I'll give you credit for being the only one on your side to object to the overt rudeness.

You stand up for what you believe in.

[rug]

105. Gee, whose trademark is this?

Followed closely by



usually accompanying a cartoon.

[hrmjustin]

106. I try. I fail at times but I try.

[cbayer]

5. Is there really a commandment against lying?

I remember it as bearing false witness against your neighbor, which specifically addressed lying about another person.

At any rate, I was taught that lying was wrong, but that wasn't really a religious lesson as much as a simple matter of ethics.

I don't think there is an official position. Where would it come from?

[Brettongarcia]

83. "Satan is the father of lies." God hates "deceit." Telling people untruths confuses their minds.

When their minds are confused, they are less successful in life.

See the discussion on religion as a "White Lie."

[okasha]

92. "Bearing false witness"

refers specifically to lies intended to harm someone.

[Brettongarcia]

94. I did not even mention or include "bearing false witness."

Generally that category of lies is held to be strictly telling false things about another person.

My argument against White Lies in any case, is partially that though they are well-intended, they finally do actually harm others.

In part by filling their minds with false images, false spirits, phantasms, their rationality is disabled at an early age. Then partially and permanently disabled.

[cbayer]

110. I like your description of this. The intent to do harm is also an important factor.

[Brettongarcia]

114. I extremely dislike this. You ladies are justifying lies

And what you are saying is wrong, in every way.

First, 1) it is a biblically incorrect sophistry. The a) Bible is full of hundreds of places where God condemns lying, in dozens of different ways: he does not like people issuing "false" impressions or word; he does not like "deceit." Furthermore, b) what God hates is not just mispresenting other PEOPLE; but misrepresenting objective FACTS we know are true.

So for example, if you say you do not have the hundred dollar bill in your pocket, but you do have it, you are not mispresenting others. But you are lying about the facts.

Furthermore 2) those many people who do not see and value this kind of honesty, end up lying about facts; and confusing not only others, but themselves finally. Those who lie about facts find it hard to deal with the factual world of science. And are lost there.

Especially 3) the "intent" aspect is a problem. This is widely thought to be an "out" for lying. However? The problem is that often good intentions go wrong. When you told your child that yes, he can walk on water, your intent might have been to tell the child that religion is good. However, what you intended could go wrong: your child could therefore confidently try to walk out onto the ocean. And drown.

Women especially seem to value "white lies," social lying. But as it turns out, those lies are usually much blacker then women realize.

So, since lies are inherently dangerous? And since good "intention"s often go wrong? It is best to avoid lying altogether.

Learn to tell your children the truth, in simple ways.

Do NOT lie to them, ladies.

Even well-intended misstatements are extremely dangerous.

Lies are inherently dangerous. And "the way to hell is paved with good intentions." Given that, even well-intended lies should be avoided. Those who do not heed this warning, end up doing a great deal of damage to themselves and others.

[cbayer]

115. Women especially value "white lies"? And those lies are usually much blacker than women realize?

My goodness. Thanks for mansplaining lies to us. We ladies would likely be lost without you.

[Brettongarcia]

117. Manifestly, you two ladies just put your heads together, and defended lies. A case in point

Last edited Wed Jul 30, 2014, 01:34 PM - Edit history (1)

[mr blur]

9. Shut up yourself. But thanks for the mention, if not the snark. (nt)

[hrmjustin]

10. The shut up coomment is not helpful and rude.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

13. Actually, the "shut up" comment is not rude and quite helpful

As I said a moment ago, it is telling the atheists not to bother with their typical and, in this case, irrelevant diatribes against religion.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. it was quite helpful, in ways you could not possibly imagine at the time you wrote that.

[okasha]

12. A lie is not a lie

when told to a person to whom the truth is not due.

Or, in Spider Robinson's paraphrase, if you are hiding a Jew in the attic, God will not be mad at you if you tell the Gestapo at the door that you're home alone.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. You know what would have worked better? Attrition.

Even if it cost your life, if every German household scored even as badly as 1:10 killing those gestapo, the war would have been over in months.

Someone comes to my house looking to kill a human I have given safe harbor to, someone's about to die all right.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Realistically, the 'someone about to die' would have been you, and the people you're helping

The Gestapo/SS/whoever would have been armed, you wouldn't, and they'd go in with the mindset of "happy, and prepared, to kill anyone who gets in our way". It wouldn't have been like "I'm ready to resist the American (or any other modern western country) police". The occasional victory over them would kill a few, but they'd use that as a reason to be even more violent.

Resistance groups in various countries did not put a significant dent in the numbers of Nazis; they were able to attack infrastructure.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. False. German civilians were armed, in fact.

The Weimar republic gun controls were relaxed for non-jews, gypsies, and other 'undesirables', so it is not unreasonable to assume any given german household would have been armed.

A political minority cannot take over and exterminate nearly 16 million people, without the assent of the population. (Nearly 70 million at the time.)

Attrition was an option, if only the german people were willing to fight.

Edit: To be clear, you lose ONE gestapo/weremacht or other agent of the Nazi regime per 10 houses you search, and attrition eliminates the problem in short order.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. No, gun ownership is not, and was not, common in European countries

Rural people might have shotguns, but they're a minority. And it's not as if Germany would have had an excess of arms to sell to civilians once they started rounding up Jews - they were at war. If you weren't already armed, you couldn't get yourself a weapon once you've decided to shelter people. The Nazis didn't give people like socialists free rein in the Thirties, either.

"To be clear, you lose ONE gestapo/weremacht or other agent of the Nazi regime per 10 houses you search, and attrition eliminates the problem in short order" - no, I don't think so. That means they shoot first, and search later. They were violent and ruthless. I agree they had the assent of much of the population, but it would have taken a revolt by the army to stop the Nazis, not danger to the secret police doing raids on houses.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. A fair amount of time passed between the relaxation of those laws, and the onset of war.

Given some of my relatives stories, my understanding is the capacity was there, but the will was not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. Pretty strictly controlled

In 1928, after a near decade of hyperinflation destroyed the structural fabric of the society, a rapidly expanding three-way political divide between the conservatives, National Socialists, and Communists prompted the rapidly declining conservative majority to enact the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."[3]
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[4]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[3]
Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the revision that such permits would no longer be issued to Jews or any company part-owned by Jews. Jews were consequently forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[3]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Partial_relaxation_of_gun_control_in_Nazi_Germany

The general public would have had 1 year to get long guns before the war started. And everything was registered, so the local police would have a good idea of which houses were armed before raiding them.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Kant would be disappointed.

[Brettongarcia]

78. The Catholic church actually uses this argument

So? 1) The church doesn't mind lying. 2) Even though the Bible said that "Satan is the father of lies."

Then next? 3) Who by the way, "doesn't deserve" the truth? The Church gets to decide who its OK to lie to; it might be you. For no other reason than say, you think the Church is dishonest.

If the Church thinks you are bad, it feels it can lie to you endlessly.

But what if the Church's idea of who is bad, is wrong?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

14. Augustine of Hippo was mentioned above, so I shall write a bit more on him

In his De Mendacio ("On Lying&quot , Augustine says that a lie is not so much a distortion of the meaning of the words as it is a lack of fidelity to another person. Thus, he would say that a doctor would not be wrong to tell the patient that there is still hope for him even if there is not. He gave a specific example from his own experience:

A man and his son were both severely injured when a cart they were riding in overturned. The two of them were taken to different houses where they were treated. The son died. His father, who was obviously also dying, asked Augustine if his son was still alive. Augustine assured him that the son was still alive, even though he knew that the son was already dead, but he felt that telling this untruth was more merciful than telling him the truth. Thus, he was not being untrue to the man when he said something which was not actually true.

Augustine's Contra Mendacium ("Against Lying&quot considers the specific case about whether it is morally acceptable to lie in furtherance of a good cause. He said that it was not, for two reasons. First, lying is itself a sin, and as Paul says, "Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it?" (Romans 6:1-3) Second, when the person who is lied to discovers the lie, he will doubt the goodness of the cause itself.

When Augustine defined of lying as being untrue to others, he disagreed with most other moralists, who allow equivocation, prevarication, or evasion if at least some meaning of the words can be considered true. But Augustine believed that in the most basic sense, what one says is irrelevant in itself, apart from the intention to deceive. As he points out, one can lie by speaking the truth, or with an expression, or even by silence. Suppose you are asked if you performed some good and heroic act, and you know that silence would be taken as a modest reluctance to claim what is true -- even if it is not. Your silence will deceive the questioner. The deception was your intent, and that intention to deceive is Augustine's definition of a lie.

Equivocators would not consider silence a lie, since silence is indeterminate. It is, of itself, equivocal. You can take from it what you want. The person keeping silence, equivocators would claim, is not responsible for another's misinterpretation of the silence, any more than a speaker is responsible for the listener's selection of one from multiple interpretations of the words.

For Augustine, such an argument is beside the point. If you believe that silence or equivocal words would deceive, you are lying. Even if you fail to deceive, since you intend to lie, you are lying. If you make a true statement, knowing it will not be believed, and wanting it to be disbelieved, the statement may be true but you are false.

Which brings us to Augustine's main point. Truth telling is not minimalist or legalistic, but maximalist. It is an effort to live in the truth.

Much of moral reasoning on lying, especially in the Catholic tradition, is based on medieval attempts to establish minimal norms of culpability. What is allowable evasion? What is acceptable noncooperation? As in any legal context, the offense must be defined, with minimal conditions set for its recognition. For Augustine, the search for truth is a positive requirement for dealing with the God who is truth. Deception is too close to self-deception for a person to muddy his or her soul with.

[trotsky]

17. So if you take words, put quotation marks around them, and claim that's what someone else said,

is that lying?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

20. I believe that your intention is to resurrect the slander some of you atheists spouted

That I lied when I C0RRECTLY and ACCURATELY reported that Richard Dawkins said that raising a child to be Catholic was worse than child abuse.

Nice try.

Now, how about addressing what I wrote, instead of attacking me.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. How about you either plagarized or are Garry Wills?

http://books.google.com/books?id=yGIBzzVKM30C&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=For+Augustine,+such+an+argument+is+beside+the+point.+If+you+believe+that+silence+or+equivocal+words+would+deceive,+you+are+lying.&source=bl&ots=wq2512jLFx&sig=YDdyDnclSUwdruINidYCE7AeSEM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gN7XU_GVJoHa8AGmhYCAAg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=For%20Augustine%2C%20such%20an%20argument%20is%20beside%20the%20point.%20If%20you%20believe%20that%20silence%20or%20equivocal%20words%20would%20deceive%2C%20you%20are%20lying.&f=false

So are you Garry Wills or have you left off an attribution?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

23. OK, that's a fair cop

I plagiarized from Garry Wills. I should not have.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Ironic. Perhaps the most fabulous case of unintentional irony I've ever seen on DU.

By the way, you've passed the same passage off before.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

30. I was being wholly un-ironical

I plagiarized, you caught me, and I admitted it.

Unlike some of you, who falsely accused me of lying about what Dawkins had said, and refuse to admit that I had not lied.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. That is the unintentional part of it.

Intentional irony is ok, but usually not so funny. But seriously dude, in an op about lying wherein you dismissed all the atheists as children unworthy of discussing the topic, you freaking cut'n'pasted an entire section of an essay and fobbed it off as your own adult words. And you've done it before. That was the best!

[trotsky]

32. You didn't just plagiarize, you lied.

You said "so I shall write a bit more on him"... and then proceeded to cite someone else's words.

A lie.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Sometimes I think god is on OUR side.

[trotsky]

56. When his followers act like this, you kinda have to wonder. n/t

[trotsky]

27. Effin A

And he's going to lecture others about honesty?

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Somehow this is all good.

The thing about faith-based reasoning is that one can explain anything.

[Fix The Stupid]

39. Why is always the super pious who are super dishonest?

At least in my experiences...

Case in point above.

[trotsky]

58. Well...

The super pious already assume they're better than everyone else, so whatever actions they take are automatically justified.

[trotsky]

26. Very good. Now link to your post of what you CLAIMED he said.

And then we can compare to find out who's telling the truth.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

38. You're the one trying to resurrect it.

You know I did not lie, but you have not got the basic honesty to admit it. I have been told not to say that some DU atheists are dishonest, lying bigots, so I will not say it.

Incidentally, when I first mentioned Dawkins in this thread in post #20, I gave a link to a newspaper story

The relevant portion of that story is

In remarks to Qatar-based TV network Al Jazeera, he said: ‘Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.’

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Are you british by any chance?

Only a true Englishman would persevere like this, egg all over one's face, pants suspiciously wet, but plowing forward as if one had not been caught flat out plagiarizing and misrepresenting. I couldn't do it. I'd just quietly leave the thread and go take up knitting or something.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

53. In other words, you would slink away

Well, I always knew you weren't a mensch.

I notice that you don't even bother to acknowledge my admission that I had done wrong. But that's just part of not being a mensch.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. yes. I would admit being an asshat and then disappear.

Dude, you've done this before. Google is your unfriend. You did it intentionally. How could it not be intentional? You didn't forget the link. This is not church. You don't get to confess your sins and then mumble some voodoo and it is all better.

[trotsky]

55. Alright, dude, you asked for it. Here it is to expose your dishonesty for all to see.

The thread is from February 2013:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121869507

You began using quotes to misrepresent what people had said in your first post - #8:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121869507#post8

Unless, of course, he is thinking of such things as "believers are ipso facto fools" or "bringing up a child to be a believer is worse than child abuse" or "those who stay in the Catholic Church are condoning pedophilia." That sort of thing is not helpful if you want a meaningful discussion, nor is it showing good manners.

I then pointed out in my response (#10) that what you had put in quotes was a strawman position. You doubled down on your dishonesty with your reply (#11):

It is a direct quote from Richard Dawkins.

Caught in your lie, you edited the post to admit that no, he hadn't said that, but now instead you claimed he said:

what Dawkins actually said was "Raising your children as Roman Catholics is worse than child abuse."

I challenged you to provide a cite for Dawkins' exact quote. You linked to an article. The quote, as you represented it, WAS NOT PRESENT. Instead, I found the full, accurate quote and put it in post #14:

‘It seems to me that telling children that they really, really believe that people who sin are going to go to Hell and roast forever – that your skin grows again when it peels off with burning – it seems to me to be intuitively entirely reasonable that that is a worse form of child abuse, that will give more nightmares, that will give more genuine distress because they really believe.’

Confronted with the evidence, you backed off to just claiming Dawkins said it was "worse than child abuse". Still not accurate, but an admission of your error and thus, dishonesty.

All your hatred and your smears won't change history - and people can judge for themselves who is the liar.

[Fix The Stupid]

61. That right there is how it is done.

Like fish in a barrel...

I despise liars...thanx for showing everyone the truth.

[skepticscott]

98. + 1000.

Well worth bookmarking for the next time Stretch tries to dredge the same old whine up. And the time after that. And the time after that. And every time he accuses someone else of lying and tries to assert his own moral righteousness and victimization.

[DetlefK]

120. Thanks.

That reminds me of boolean algebra: True and false combined equal false.

[libodem]

18. All lying is not the same

A little white lie to spare someone's feelings is not the same as a lie set out to deceive or ruin someone's reputation.

[Brettongarcia]

77. Many people say that religion itself is a "White" Lie;they tell you there is a god, to make you obey

Fear of a god, makes people behave, they say. Fear of his punishment. Therefore religion is said to a lie probably; but to be a good or harmless or "white" lie.

But is it really white? The Bible warned about "whitewashing" the sins of holy men. It may be that raising children with an untruth confuses them, and messes up their lives more than it helps them. And gives them false reasons for behaving.

[libodem]

100. I don't think kids need to be brainwashed

With cult like indoctrination to be taught right from wrong. I think we all really want to do the right thing as human beings. Given all our basic needs are met. We want to do what makes us feel good about who we are. We want to see others be treated as well as ourselves. We should have empathy.

Just rambling.

[Brettongarcia]

108. I agree. Just simply explain the logic of things to kids; don't tell them lies

[Starboard Tack]

21. Well, that's it then. I guess we're all going to hell.

Actually, no, on second thoughts, I, personally, myself, have never told a lie. Seriously! No! Really! Please?
Oh, alright! Maybe just a few teeny ones. Can I just go stand in the corner for a few minutes instead?

[Brettongarcia]

79. So lying is no problem for you?

[Starboard Tack]

82. To be honest, nothing is a problem for me

No, wait, that's a lie!

[Brettongarcia]

85. So you are confessing to being a liar?

[Starboard Tack]

88. Confess? Moi? Je ne suis pas Catholique

I would never confess anything. Well, that's not really true. I might, if you ask me nicely. Do you wear a long purple robe and a silly hat? Come on now, tell the truth. Have you ever been possessed by demons?

[Brettongarcia]

91. Have you ever heard about the White Lie theory of religion? What do you think of it?

[Starboard Tack]

95. No! Well maybe. On second thoughts, No!

Does that count? Are theories lies? Is puffery a lie? Are we all lies? Is humor a lie? Is exaggeration a lie? Is telling the truth a lie, when it's not actually the truth?

In other words, my dear Brettongarcia, what the fuck is a lie? Is it the opposite of the truth? And, if so, what is the truth? Every time you use an adjective to describe something, you are expressing what you perceive to be the truth. That was a great movie, you say, but everyone else thought it sucked. Who's lying? You? Everyone else? Both? Or no one?

The truth is purely subjective. Deal with it.

[Brettongarcia]

96. "In lies, truth" the Romans used to say

Though to be sure, that's the Romans; that's not religion. Religion usually asserts it tells the truth. If it does not, then it is confusing people; saying one thing that it does not even believe itself.

By the way? My dissertation was on Poststructuralism in part; of course I know philosophy. And the notion that we cannot know real reality "out there." But in spite of that, each of us believes that some things seem more true than others. We do not walk in front of fast-moving cars ... because we believe that they are real, and really dangerous. Perhaps arguments can be made against the reality of cars. But in actual practice? "Even the people who believe the whole world is a delusion, still look both ways before crossing the street."

However uncertain we may say we are about reality, in actual practice, we assign relative certainties to countless things.

So what things do we actually think are true? And which are untrue?

[Starboard Tack]

99. You see, you are quite bright, after all.

"we assign relative certainties to countless things". Assigning them doesn't make them true. We take risks based on probabilities learned from past experience.
Everything is relative. Blind people don't look both ways when they cross the street. Never assume that we all respond to certain stimuli in the same way.
I wonder how many who claim no belief in superstition have no qualms about walking under ladders, taking bananas on boats, leaving port on a Friday, putting shoes on the table, eating with the left hand or wiping their ass with the right hand. How many knock on wood?

Fact is, no two people have the same reality, no matter how similar. So, the longer you interact with someone, the sooner you discover that you have different truths. Which gives some credibility to the saying "Familiarity breeds contempt!"

[Brettongarcia]

109. It hardly matters if none of us have absolute truth; we know some things that seem more certain

... than others. Some seem quite firm. If I pick up a big rock, chances are good it will be heavy. If the weather goes down to 20 degrees F., small standing bodies of water will begin to freeze. If you fire a rocket at the right angle at 20,000 MPH, chances are good we can get it to orbit.

The fact is, even if there are no absolute truths, still there are many, many, many things, many forms of knowledge, truths, that seem quite, quite, quite reliable.

Even a blind person listens to both sides of the street, before crossing.

So once again: given that we cannot know absolute truth, still, we can know many things with relative certainty.

Given that: we should tell the firmest truth that we know.

Science is trying hard to do that. But is religion doing that? Are its many various guesses about reality really true? Keep in mind that most religions disagree with each other. They say that different things are true. Science finds more unanimity.

By the way, if you wonder how many people who claim not to believe in superstition, still follow superstitious rules? Quite a few don't.

So has religion found any plausible foundation? Compared to Science? At best it has found a thousand contradictory tales; even some would say, deliberate lies.

[Starboard Tack]

113. Why would you compare religion with science?

Science is about man's quest for knowledge in the physical universe, through observation and experimentation and hypothesis.
Religion is about man's spiritual quest, by organizing beliefs into some kind of cohesive structure, in an effort to create some order in our existence.

They are entirely different, and not necessarily incompatible.

One is about research, fact finding and experimentation. - Objective truth
The other is about art, poetry, story telling and the imagination. - Subjective truth

[Brettongarcia]

116. Is it safe to abandon all reason? Even in Art? In Religion? God says, don't do it.

1) As a sometimes Art historian and literary critic, I believe that elements of art and literature can be discovered to have some reason, logic, in them. Art is not utterly illogical. And it is useful- and critical - to find the rational and historical underpinnings.

2) To suddenly declare that a given area of human endeavor to be a reason-free zone, can be dangerous and even fatal. Abandoning your reason in any context, can make you mindless and criminally insane.

3) Furthermore, your description of religion as non-scientific is simply incorrect. My own professional studies are dedicated to showing that surprisingly, even the Bible itself supports "science," by name and by full description. See for example, Dan. 1.4-15, King James Edition specifically. Also 1 Kings 18.20-40.

So in sum? Your assertion that religion is entirely different from science is simply, factually, biblically wrong.

Furthermore, deciding to simply abandon your Reason, even for a moment in just one sphere or two - say, Religion - turns out to be insanity. Even as it turns out, criminal insanity. As we showed on this blog a few months ago; in our countless earlier examples of deaths, murders, committed by very, very anti-rational religious folks.

[Starboard Tack]

119. I don't deal in absolutes like "Is it safe to abandon all reason?"

What on earth does that mean? Reason doesn't even enter into the realm of science. Science is not about reason, it is about discovery of the "how", not the "why". Reason is purely subjective, depending on one's situation, needs, desires and priorities. There is nothing objective about reason.

Art is all about reason, as is religion.

Science is not about reason. It's about purpose. About how the universe works, not why. There is no why, unless you subscribe to a creating deity, who thinks like a human. Man created God in his own image, because man thinks subjectively, he relies on reason to explain his existence, when in "reality", it needs no explaining.

Science is about purpose, discovery and understanding. Religion is about reason and explaining.

I can see why you think it is insanity, because you have it all backwards.
Your conflation of religion and insanity is absurd. Of course there are crazy people, who do atrocious things and their motives are attributed to religious extremism? Do you think, scientifically, that these same people would have been sane, had they never been exposed to religion. Do you have some evidence that sanity is dependent on religious preference?

I think you fall into the category of those who are always looking for a scapegoat for the evils of this world, which ironically, puts you alongside the very people you hold in disdain.

You take reason and purpose as one and the same. That's where irrational thought begins.

[Brettongarcia]

121. Logic is a major part of reason. Logic is necessary in science.

[Starboard Tack]

123. No, actually, it is not necessary to science. Here are 5 definitions of "reason"

noun
1.
a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2.
a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3.
the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4.
sound judgment; good sense.
5.
normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.

Which of those do you find necessary in science?

Logical reasoning falls into 3 categories.

Deductive reasoning determines whether the truth of a conclusion can be determined for that rule, based solely on the truth of the premises. Example: "When it rains, things outside get wet. The grass is outside, therefore: when it rains, the grass gets wet."
Mathematical logic and philosophical logic are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.

Inductive reasoning attempts to support a determination of the rule. It hypothesizes a rule after numerous examples are taken to be a conclusion that follows from a precondition in terms of such a rule. Example: "The grass got wet numerous times when it rained, therefore: the grass always gets wet when it rains." While they may be persuasive, these arguments are not deductively valid, see the problem of induction.
Science is associated with this type of reasoning.

Abductive reasoning, aka inference to the best explanation, selects a cogent set of preconditions. Given a true conclusion and a rule, it attempts to select some possible premises that, if true also, can support the conclusion, though not uniquely. Example: "When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is outside and nothing outside is dry, therefore: maybe it rained."
Diagnosticians and detectives are commonly associated with this type of reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning

[Brettongarcia]

132. I spent some time trying to remember if I'd ever heard a more indefensible thing from an adult

In my entire life. As your assertion that Reason " is not necessary to Science."
I also spent some notable time mentally debating whether I should speak to you again.

However? Let's start with 1) a basis or "cause" for saying something. Example: an early scientist might ask, "why is grass green"? Then on doing a little research, he finds the "cause" is chlorophyll. Or "why are people more intelligent than animals"? On research: the cause is a larger brain.

"Reason"ing about natural causes, looking for the reasons that things happen, is THE MAIN core idea in Science.

Next? Science requires Math. Logic and math are linked to each other; at times one is considered a subset of the other. And Logic is part of Reason: "If all mammals are warm-blooded, and this animal is said to be a mammal, then it should have warm blood."

Your own definitions note that abductive logic, used scientific or medical "diagnost"ics, is associated with "reason"ing.

Are you the one related to Ms. CBayer?

[Starboard Tack]

134. You don't get it do you?

You think grass is green for a reason? It isn't. Grass is not motivated by reasons. The question you need to ask is how does grass get to be green? Or, why do I perceive grass as green? Only humans have motives. Grass just is. It doesn't need a reason to be green.

The question should be "How does grass get to be green?" Answer - Chlorophyll. In the case of grass, one of the consequences of chlorophyll is to make it green. There is no reasoning involved. The only reasoning is performed by the humans in their effort to figure shit like that out. The humans are motivated by their quest for understanding. To ascribe a reason for non human activity is both arrogant and ignorant.

It's like asking "why does the sun shine?"

Yes, I am the one, that one, the infamous one, related to cbayer.

[Brettongarcia]

136. To say there is "reason" in the universe, does not means that the universe reasons mentally;

it does not mean the universe is thinking. Or that there was a thinking being that created it.

Rather by saying that "the universe, Nature, is rational," it has been meant that nature has structures, causes, that human Reason can discover. The universe is ordered, events are caused in regular predictable ways; in ways that corresponds to rational human thought.

So for example? Grass is not magically green; it is green for a "reason." Which is that it has chlorophyll. If an apple falls to the ground, it is because Gravity caused it. Things don't happen magically; they happen for REASONS. This is what we mean when we say the universe is rational.

Nature appears to be full of connectors - if this, then that. Which correspond to what human reason and logic have discovered. If/then logic or reasoning, is a major part of seeing causality. The universe is full of causal forces, that make things happen in an orderly way. That can be discovered by human Reason; "if/then" situations. This in no way supposes that the Universe is somehow conscious, and is intelligently reasoning, like a God or human being.

It sounds as if you once heard arguments that a rational mind of God, ordered the universe, and is consciously putting it together to follow his divine will. That argument is clearly not currently provable. But that is not what we mean here by saying that "the universe is rational." We mean rather that the universe is "rational" ... in the sense of having structures, predictable causal chains, that human beings can apprehend. Through their intelligence or reason.

[jwirr]

29. The exception I am aware of is not from religion. Heard a couple of MBA students discussing when

it is okay to lie. Apparently there is a time lying is not a sin in business. Think commercials.

[Brettongarcia]

80. It's called "puffery." For puffing things up. Generally not considered QUITE a lie. But halfway

[Starboard Tack]

89. "Puffery"? MonsieurBrettonSenorGarcia

Nothing like a bit of puffery, is there? Is that your real name or is it a bit of puffery? Come on now, laddie, confess.

[Brettongarcia]

93. It is widely recognized on the Web that names here are "internet names," or nom de plumes.

Almost no one takes them as genuine. They are well knowm to be symbols, not names. Therefore?

Though by the way though, my Internet name is a fairly accurate descriptor. Rather like a professor calling himself "professor." Not exactly a lie.

[Starboard Tack]

97. Ah, not exactly a lie. Perhaps a little "puffery"?

I wonder if everyone in Australia is lying because they think it's Wednesday.

[Brettongarcia]

112. My point exactly

Last edited Wed Jul 30, 2014, 05:38 AM - Edit history (1)

You are at first insisting that since our perspectives are all relative, then our lives - and "truths" - are hopelessly subjective. But actually, your own Australian example hints that we can correct for some subjectivity. If we systematically take into account the subjective situation - and perspective - of a given observation, we can often subtract that out of any given statement. To begin to deduce the truth of the matter.

So for example? If we are told by an Australian that it is 5 PM, we simply subtract out their time difference, to come up with a more universal GMT or UTC. A more absolute or universal standard.

So the fact is, with a little reason and science, we can arrive at relatively stable, reliable truths.

So what is the truth about religion? As it turns out, the truth is not pretty.

[Starboard Tack]

118. Not "hopelessly subjective". Not at all.

I was just making a point.
Scientific discovery aims to establish objective truths
Religions aim to establish subjective truths.

[Brettongarcia]

122. Wrong. "Put me to the test" says God in Mal. 3.10. Examine prophets by their material "fruits"

The Bible warned that there would be many bad - or as it constantly repeated, "false" - things, even in holy men, churches, and in all religious things, including Christian ones. And it warned about problems in our subjective "minds": "delusions," "illusions," "false dreams." To overcome the inherent fallibility of our individual minds, the Bible told us to "test" our ideas, "test everything." Against physical, material reality (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1 Kings 18.20-40).

[SummerSnow]

33. When my children were about 6 and 7 years old.

I can remember their school teacher wanted to have a meeting with me about why my children don't believe in Santa Claus.I told them I don't teach my children lies ,propaganda,and fairy tales as truth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Was that a state secular school?

If so, did they ever apologise for wasting your time?

[SummerSnow]

52. It was a public school.They tried to tell me that holiday activities

we're apart of the curriculum.I told them it was religiously based and they could not teach my children religion. They were here to get a secular education. I told her if they forced it I would take them to court.They didn't want to go there.So they apologized .

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. Good for you, for making them see the true situation (nt)

[xfundy]

36. "Divine deception."

Mormons love it. So do Moonies. I recall hearing in church about it--and if the ends justify the means, it's A-OK.

[Brettongarcia]

86. It's often also called the "White Lie" view of religion.

Lies are OK, if they bring something good. Telling people there is an invisible god in the sky watching them, makes them behave they say, when they think they might otherwise be able to get away with many crimes.

Though elsewhere, the Catholic Church claims that you cannot sin, even to avoid a sin.

It's actually a very, very major theory on Christianity. Some say that most intelligent Christians know this secret. But they keep it a secret; as secret as an adult keeps the truth about Santa under his hat.

Don't tell the children?

[rug]

70. Jury results. FYI.

On Tue Jul 29, 2014, 02:36 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Question about lying.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218143436

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

For the atheists: No, I'm not talking about how religion is one big lie yaddayaddayadda. Shut up. I mean a real-life declaration about something like tricking pagans in negotiations or willfully telling children a lie and revealing it to them later when they are adult.

Really? "Shut Up"? How about you go take a flying fuck at the moon?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 29, 2014, 02:49 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Religion. Anything seems to go in this group.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: As I read it, "Shut Up" meant "Don't misconstrue this point and start useless off-topic sub-threads." Even if it didn't, "shut up" doesn't rise to the level of hide.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Don't tell me to shut up!
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Even though I'm an atheist and the op told me to shut up, I understand the question he wants to address, I think. It seems to me to be the veracity of people, not the scriptures, that he is questioning. He could have been, maybe, a little more diplomatic, but he defined the parameters of his discussion. I'm ok with that.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Someone was offended.

[hrmjustin]

72. thanks for posting the results.

[DetlefK]

124. Most excellent.

Now that my OP stands, soon my sinister plans will come to fruition. Minions! Join me in my evil laughter!

[Gore1FL]

75. It's a constant.

Holy books are at best unverifiable, and at worst lies by the very nature of their construct.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. Are you sure you weren't told to shut up about that?

Seems to me you were, but I'm not an adult plagiarizer, so I wouldn't know.

[Brettongarcia]

81. Interestingly though, the OP leaves open one extremely important topic: is religion a White Lie

The author said this: "I mean a real-life declaration about something like tricking pagans in negotiations or willfully telling children a lie and revealing it to them later when they are adult. "

What is he talking about? Many people think that religion, god, might be a lie designed to make people behave. We tell them there is an invisible guy in the sky watching their every move. To keep them from stealing say, even when they think that they could get away with it.

This actually is a rather important theory of Religion. And one that atheists might like to discuss.

It would mean that Christianity is more like "Santa Claus" than most people have thought. The author proposes to discuss whether religion is a lie - and that many people know it. The same as adults know that the "Santa Claus" tale is a lie. And the lie would be told for the same reason: to get people to behave.

But if so, then here is the interesting question: is this "white" lie really all that white? Could there be some unsuspectedly crippling effects, from this type of lie?

[Gore1FL]

107. Not exactly. I meant the bible itself contains the stories with all the rationale anyone needs.

Religions don't really have to lie to manipulate. They simply need to read another part of whatever book they believe is the word of god. Examples of the things the OP is looking for can be found in the pages of virtually any holy book. That's what I meant.

That's a little different than "all religions are a lie;" as I read it, that's what the OP was trying to avoid.

[Brettongarcia]

111. As I read it, the OP didn't want a simple, general condemnation of Religion; it wanted specifics

Especially and specifically, it asked us to entertain the idea that adults tell "children" religious lies, to get them to behave

[Gore1FL]

125. My point was is that adults don't have to "lie" to their children

They just need to pick another passage or interpretation. The lie comes in giving the book authority in the first place.

[Warren Stupidity]

128. "The lie comes in giving the book authority in the first place." - that's the part you are supposed

to shut up about, as per the op. Bad atheist. Bad.

[Gore1FL]

135. I'd appreciate not being used as a vehicle to attack the OP. n/t

[edhopper]

87. The scriptures can and are

used to justify anything. So I don't think it a problem for a religion to justify lying. So the question is 'official' for whom?

[djean111]

126. The "Lying for the Lord" thing, espoused by the Mormons (are Mitt's lips moving? Then he is lying),

seems, to me, as sort of prevalent throughout religion. I have always felt that religion was of an "end justifies the means" philosophy. So when someone uses the Christian tag to try and gain my trust, I back away. Politicians, shopkeepers.
Lying about how same-sex marriage will lead to bestiality and ruin hetero marriages - boy, is that lie told a lot.

I actually avoid small business that make a big point of saying Christian-owned, ever since I got my car "fixed" at a CHRISTIAN (big sign out front) car repair shop, so it would pass the now-extinct Florida emissions test. My regular mechanic was busy, so he sent me there. Not only did I fail the test, but there were a couple of things cracked that had not been cracked. My guy called the Christian dealer, had a word with him, I took my car back and they replaced all the parts they broke and refunded my money. Went to a Christian place in Durham NC a while back, asked for and paid for a new radiator, a used one was installed.

This is not about 'how religion is one big lie yaddayaddayadda'. so you shut up (or whoever actually wrote the OP?). Rudeness begets rudeness.

[DetlefK]

129. On the rudeness...

I'm agnostic and rarely around here. Most of the time I'm in the AA-subgroup. And every time I or somebody else tries to raise a spiritual or philosophical issue, 90% of the incoming posts are "You are wasting your time, there is no God."

Theists can't imagine what it's like to live in world without God and atheists can't imagine what it's like to live in world with God.

That argument "Don't bother thinking about it, it's all a lie." is seemingly everywhere among atheists. (And yet, for all their philosophical sparring, no side can claim to have found a convincing proof for or against the existence of God...)
I wanted a discussion on religious doctrine, not the usual bombardment and spamming with self-reassuring substance-less comments.



Atheists actually have a hard time in the US. I'm a foreigner, but I can feel that in the tone of their comments. It's the same desperation and vile born from powerlessness that all of DU exhibited during the Bush-years. They feel (and to some extent are) oppressed and as a result they tend to reassert themselves in a particular aggressive fashion. "Shut up" is rude, but I think, they can take that. They are a hard lot.

[djean111]

130. I am an atheist, and the "shut up" mostly just made me roll my eyes.

And I agree wholeheartedly with you - neither "side" has any proof whatsoever.
Belief does not affect reality, and no one knows the reality.
I did know what it was like to live in a world with a god - up until I just stopped believing. I think a lot of atheists have lived in both worlds, or mindsets.

The hard time I have is with the way theists want to influence legislation to suit themselves. The notion that only theists can have a moral compass. That sort of thing.
What a theist thinks of me is irrelevant, it is the sticks and stones of legislation and such that can hurt me!

[Warren Stupidity]

133. "Belief does not affect reality" - and yet your second paragraph illustrates exactly why it does.

"theists want to influence legislation to suit themselves" - to suit their beliefs that is, and their beliefs are irrational and not subject to evidence based reasoning, they are ordained by invisible beings with unquestionable authority, in most cases. Religion is freaking dangerous to society. It may have served an evolutionary purpose, but that purpose has long since vanished. Now it is an obsolete artifact of a prior level of civilization, one that is hugely problematic at the moment.

[djean111]

137. What I meant was that believing in a god, or not, has no effect on whether there is a god.

But I agree with your post completely - yes, religion is dangerous indeed.

[Warren Stupidity]

138. Well I'd even argue that point as I think gods are entirely a social construct.

It is belief in gods that keeps this shared delusional - and I do not mean that in the pathological sense - vital.

[edhopper]

131. Many if not most atheists

were believers at one time, So yes, they can imaging a world with God. they have decided it wasn't the real world we all live in.

About the "Shut Up". I well understood the discussion you wanted and there is nothing wrong with asking posters to refrain from things you see as tangents.
But there were much better ways to phrase it without the animus. Instead you got the ire of those you insulted.

[intaglio]

127. Romans 3:7

For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?

St Jerome Epistle to Pammachus

I will only mention the Apostle Paul. ... He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles.

We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result.

Jerome again 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation

How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived

St Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2

We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity

Not to mention the forgery he probably inspired in Josephus' history

St Clement of Alexandria is reputed to have said:

Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith

St Ignatius Loyola observed:

We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides.

Then there was Tertullian, Church Father and liar who in Apology. xxi and Anti-Nicene Fathers, iii, 35 said that Pilate was a Christian.

All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius. Yes, and even the Caesars would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars

Luther was no better, he was reported by his secretary as saying

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

Then there are the largely unattributed lies
The Donation of Constantine of which the Catholic Encyclopedia says "This document is without doubt a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850,"

The Neronian Persecution which was utterly unknown until reported by a follower of St Martin of Tours put together The Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus

[Brettongarcia]

139. And? The Bible itself contains hundreds of warnings about "false" things in religion; even Christian

"False prophets"; false religious "dreams"; false "apostles"; bad "angels"; false or bad " spirits"; bad things in "church"es, even Christian ones. Furthermore, the Bible warned even about major Christian apostles like St. Peter (Mat. 16.23).

Then furthermore, we see the apostle Paul above, flirting with lying, questioning prohibitions on it. And even suggesting that lying in the service of religious beliefs is a good thing.

And then? We see whole lot of apparent lies, deep in the religious hierarchy, above.

Probably the Bible condemns lies, "false" things, "deceit." But apparently religious leaders ignored those warnings pretty often. Possibly the authors or editors of our Bibles ignored those warnings - and gave us an often-false document. Interestingly the Bible, among hundreds of other warnings, warns about "false scribes." The Bible warned that many of those who write the words of "God," write it wrongly, falsely. So that even "God said" statements are often false (see the book of Jeremiah, etc.).

Given all that, probably no one should be trusting our religious leaders too much; it seems possible that some of them even consciously constructed parts of religion, even as a conscious lie. A lie that they thought was a "white" lie. But it now seems to be a lie that may turn out to be black as coal, after all. Given the physically fatal effects we now see of much of religion.

[intaglio]

140. You asked about the Church

and from Paul onwards the Church comes out in favour of lying.

Of course if you want to cite the Bible then you can prove anything you want. It is a hotch-potch of contradiction from beginning to end. The Gospels lie from the birth of Jesus (no Census, Herod's reign, the genealogy of Jesus) through to the Crucifixion; Genesis is the product of at least 4 different conflicting sources and was further edited in the time of the Maccabees.

[Brettongarcia]

141. So it rather seems at times. Still, looks like most of the Bible itself opposed lying.

For that matter? Note that very technically, Paul did not SAY lying was good in your quote from Romans; instead he asked a rhetorical QUESTION. One that questioned the prohibition on lying for God to be sure.

And Paul's rhetorical questioning of honesty, to be sure (along with their own native love of lying) was enough for Christians everywhere, and the Church, to go with lying fulltime.

Or rather, let's put it this way: 1) most Christians think what they are saying is true. But 2) the smarter ones suspect there are many untruths, lies, in it. So then? Indeed, they justify lying.

Sometimes they think of it as necessary "simplification" for "child"ren. Over the years I've spoken to at least a hundred priests, ministers, bishops, theologians, and one pope. And the impression I get is that the smarter ones are in category 2. Often the way they rationalize it away, is by saying that to be sure the simple religion they taught us as "children" or simple adults, was to be sure over-simplified. Oddly, the catechism allows that too: speaking to people on the level they understand.

What our higher religious leaders don't know? Is that even their own "high"est and most elevated theology is ALSO oversimplified, or false.