Deceipt as an Evangelistic Tool

[Tigger45]

Two things.

1. When exploring Christianity I did my own research and checked many different sources including secular.

2. One thing that impressed me about the Bible is that most accounts depicted believers as very fallible.

I think that’s the best approach when testifying to others. No need for deceit.

 

[cloudyday2]

I find your definition of a lie to be, well, dishonest. Let's see what Mirriam Webster's definition of a lie is:

1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

2: to create a false or misleading impression

To stretch the truth to make it fit your world view is called intellectual dishonesty. There already is a definition of what lying is. Use it. You know better.

I prefer to call my definition "creative" rather than "dishonest"

 

[cloudyday2]

Two things.

1. When exploring Christianity I did my own research and checked many different sources including secular.

2. One thing that impressed me about the Bible is that most accounts depicted believers as very fallible.

I think that’s the best approach when testifying to others. No need for deceit.

When you mentioned that you checked many different different sources it reminded me of another argument in support of deceptive evangelism. If an evangelist is only one of many voices and the opposing voices are exaggerating the strength of their case then maybe it is the responsibility of the evangelist to also exaggerate and deceive so that the "center of mass" of all arguments will remain true. In other words, "fight fire with fire".

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, it's about empowering the other person to have real choices. A lie removes choices from the other person in an attempt to leave only one choice - the choice that you want the other person to make. That is my definition of a lie.

So, take as an example a skeptic who is too jaded to take the gamble of answering an altar call at church. That skeptic is in a state of limited choices. If an evangelist presents information selectively to make the case for Christ stronger then the evangelist is actually opening the mind of the skeptic and making more choices possible. That might be seen as the opposite of a lie even though the information is non-factual. ... And if Jesus answers the skeptic's prayers at the altar call by confirming the Christian promises then what does it matter how the skeptic was led to the altar?

I have to presume you are proposing this scheme as a way of promoting discussion, or provoking a reaction. Either you are serious, which in my book means you are defending something that is morally reprehensible, or you are misleading your audience as to your real intent - in fact lying. The only possible escape route for you is that you really have not thought this through. There are just some situations where so called white lies don't apply.

 

[Ophiolite]

When you mentioned that you checked many different different sources it reminded me of another argument in support of deceptive evangelism. If an evangelist is only one of many voices and the opposing voices are exaggerating the strength of their case then maybe it is the responsibility of the evangelist to also exaggerate and deceive so that the "center of mass" of all arguments will remain true. In other words, "fight fire with fire".

That's just wrong. /Bemused disbelief!

 

[cloudyday2]

Hello cloudyday, thanks for your reply. Obviously the whole book of Daniel couldn't be composed during the time of Nebuchadnezzar as it goes on after his death. Daniel in the Den of Lions was during the reign of King Darius. God Bless

True enough.

 

[cloudyday2]

I have to presume you are proposing this scheme as a way of promoting discussion, or provoking a reaction. Either you are serious, which in my book means you are defending something that is morally reprehensible, or you are misleading your audience as to your real intent - in fact lying. The only possible escape route for you is that you really have not thought this through. There are just some situations where so called white lies don't apply.

I've found that sometimes I can learn things by questioning assumptions. Sometimes I only confuse myself too.

 

[Tigger45]

When you mentioned that you checked many different different sources it reminded me of another argument in support of deceptive evangelism. If an evangelist is only one of many voices and the opposing voices are exaggerating the strength of their case then maybe it is the responsibility of the evangelist to also exaggerate and deceive so that the "center of mass" of all arguments will remain true. In other words, "fight fire with fire".

Sure sometimes I was looking for the best argument but other times separate sources confirming the an event substantiated the event.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

like missionaries in various churches I've been to subconsciously send their prettiest girls to meet the young men to talk about joining their church

You send those most comfortable and confident to talk to new people; in fact, they'll usually offer to do so. Who is more confident than a pretty girl talking to guys? Inevitably they have almost always received a positive or flattering response, especially in a such a 'safe' environment like a Church. The key word you used is subconsciously, as this is just a thing that happens from the nature of relationships, not a planned or misleading thing. In the same way, when you go to a church with an older congregation, the most grandmotherly parishioner will inevitably invite you to tea afterwards.

the tendency for Christians to feign friendship to make you into a conversion

Does that really happen? I was a hardcore atheist in university, and I had some great religious conversations sitting around wasting time as students do, when you were supposed to be productive. I have always thought that people make an acquaintance, a proto-friendship, before fastening onto their irreligiosity to earmark as a conversion attempt. I don't think there is a feigning here either, as if you don't think there is potential, why attempt it?

It reminds me of a Muslim surgeon that I talked to at length in theatre, who told me I was ready to 'revert' to Islam. I really don't think real religious conversations have duplicitous undercurrents, though I am sure the weirder elements do get downplayed for the audience. But that is human nature - if someone talks to you about any interest, it is easy to go at length down weird rabbitholes or defend it (as on the internet), but real conversations are a give and take. In English we say a conversation, a talking together, which is not supposed to be one side sermonising the other.

 

[disciple Clint]

Another thing to consider is that humans probably cannot know anything for certain. Our science is only a best guess that is always in flux. Factuality is impossible, so a lie is not about facts and non-facts.A lie is about manipulating another person in your own interests without consideration of the other person's interests. An evangelist would not be telling a lie if the lie results in the listener's salvation - right?

Well there is truth and it is not relative, truth is truth, there is no my truth and your truth. Also the ends do not justify the means, doing something that is wrong in an effort to obtain a good result is wrong every time.

 

[Hazelelponi]

If you feel you have to lie to sell your God then you don't know Him. The truth can be a hard pill to swallow, but it's best to face that truth head on.

If someone doesn't come to God in the face of the truth, or hates you for it the reality is at least you spoke truth in His Name, and not a lie.

We shouldn't be hypocritical in our walk with Him.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is the saying "if you aren't cheating you're not trying." What do you think about being mildly deceptive in the promotion of Christianity in an effort to save more souls?

I own a lot of Christian documentaries on DVD that I watch frequently. I have noticed that the narrators often make claims that are not actually justified by the interviews with historians and other experts. I assume the editors of the documentaries know that they are being deceptive, but they think it is acceptable.

I would consider it completely unacceptable. It's not evangelism, it's charlatanism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Does that really happen?

It does. I'm not going to say it's common, I don't know. But I do know that back in my high school days one of the youth groups I participated in was pretty forceful in its trying to get us proselytizing, and had workshops and what not about "friendship evangelism" which without directly saying it, had the implication that one should establish friendships with the express purpose to try and get a conversion out of it. I'm sure they wouldn't have seen it as feigning friendship, but the goal wasn't to be a good friend, the goal was to get a conversion notch on one's belt. And friendship with ulterior motives, even if one convinces themselves that those motives are good, is only the pretense of friendship.

-CryptoLutheran