Holy Deceit: Lying for Jesus, or Dishonoring Christ?

[Beanieboy]

When having debate, I find a number of self-proclaimed Christians outright lying.

Example: Prop 8 protects the marriage of heterosexuals, and harms no one.
The Truth: Gays who have legally married may be told by the state that they are no longer married. It invalidates the gay couples marriage.

Example: Gays have a life expectancy of 45.
Fact: This finding came from counting obits in gay newpapers, and calculating the age. It is full of holes (does not include lesbians, counts gay men during the rise of AIDS, but does not count those who are living, etc.)
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html
Cameron has been dropped from the APA for misrepresentation of data and ethics violations.
His has been charged with misrepresentation repeatedly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron

Yet, even shown this, Christian poser will continue to cite his work, and claim that it is true.

I have witnessed this in posts, time after time - not just these lies, these deceptions, or misrepresentation, but also of Scripture.

A few times, the woman about to be stoned was quoted as a rebuke: Go, and SIN NO MORE!
However, in the story, as most people understand it, one should not cast the first stone in judgement against another, unless you are without sin yourself.
There is also a very important point - that when Christ asks the woman where her accusers are, and she says that they have left, he says, "Neither do I condemn you," when Christ was without sin, and should have cast the first stone. He didn't. He then forgave her, and allowed her to go, to sin no more.

Does that sound like harsh rebuke?
Or does it twist the scripture to say something that was never intended?

My concern is that what often results from this is the conclusion that Christians are often deceitful, dishonest, tell half-truths, or misrepresent, in order to make a point. They do not think deceit or lying is that bad, understanding that they are forgiven, so who cares?

But I have to keep telling myself, "this is not all Christians. I don't even know if this is a Christian, but rather a really bad imitator, a Pharisee, that wouldn't know God if he asked him for change."

But it give Christians a really bad reputation for people that forget that. It's a very bad witness even for Christ himself, often displaying the wrath and condemnation of God, and claiming that the message of the Gospel.

I am curious how Christians feel about this, and if what I have said is true to other nonChristians.

 

[WatersMoon110]

As a Christian, I agree with you. It is unethical and not Christ-like to lie. Even if one's motives are "good" (to try and prevent what a given lying person sees as a sin), it isn't acceptable to lie.

Though, I admit, I find it okay to lie to protect one's life or the life of another. If someone came to me and said, I want to beat up Beanieboy (since you are the only other poster in here) and asked me where you were, I wouldn't tell them. If I were a Christian back in the day of Paul or even as late as the time of John of Revelation, I would lie to any Roman soldier who asked me if was a Christian so that they wouldn't kill me or my family. I feel that you can always live and ask God's forgiveness later.

Perhaps such posters feel that they can ask the forgiveness of God later for their lying. But I think that many are just unwilling to believe that their information is faulty, or to take the word of a "sinner" that the information they provide is faulty. I just try to remember that reality disagrees with them, and someday society will move on past this stupid, stupid idea that Gay People are "bad". I'm totally sick of it, but I know that this next generation that is growing up (Generation Z) really seems to believe that it is Okay to be Gay. I think that their children will think of heterosexism like I thought of racism as a child: "a stupid belief held only by those old people who are trying to live in the past".

 

[Catherineanne]

But it give Christians a really bad reputation for people that forget that. It's a very bad witness even for Christ himself, often displaying the wrath and condemnation of God, and claiming that the message of the Gospel.

I am curious how Christians feel about this, and if what I have said is true to other nonChristians.

You are right. Christ himself did not tell lies, or engage in half truths. What he did say, is that Satan is a liar and the father of lies, and the truth is not in him.

If any Christian engages in half truths or untruths, they are not serving Christ, but the evil one. And this behaviour is most certainly no service to Christ, or to his church.

 

[keith99]

Baring extreme cases, lieing for Christ dishonors him, at leat to the extent that the one claiming to do so is thought of as a ture follower.

The extreme cases? Did you see a (Jew, Black, Homo) go by when asked by men is sheets or the like.

Some hold that to lie in such a case is still wrong. I will agree, so long as the person involved refuses an answer in all such cases. That is a risky action.

 

[Andreusz]

Thanks for starting this thread, Beanieboy -- I was thinking of starting a similar one.
Two falsehoods that crop up again and again, despite being corrected numerous times, are:
'There is no such thing as sexual orientation'
'Gays don't feel love, only lust'

There is also the tendency to quote the kind of falsehoods spread by James Dobson. BigBadWlf went to a lot of trouble in the Dobson thread to post links that showed these assertions to be false, but he was ignored.

One conclusion I have come to is that a lot of Christians believe it is okay to lie if you're lying for Jesus.

 

[Funny Fundie]

However, in the story, as most people understand it, one should not cast the first stone in judgement against another, unless you are without sin yourself.
There is also a very important point - that when Christ asks the woman where her accusers are, and she says that they have left, he says, "Neither do I condemn you," when Christ was without sin, and should have cast the first stone. He didn't. He then forgave her, and allowed her to go, to sin no more.

Does that sound like harsh rebuke?
Or does it twist the scripture to say something that was never intended?

My concern is that what often results from this is the conclusion that Christians are often deceitful, dishonest, tell half-truths, or misrepresent, in order to make a point. They do not think deceit or lying is that bad, understanding that they are forgiven, so who cares?

But I have to keep telling myself, "this is not all Christians. I don't even know if this is a Christian, but rather a really bad imitator, a Pharisee, that wouldn't know God if he asked him for change."

But it give Christians a really bad reputation for people that forget that. It's a very bad witness even for Christ himself, often displaying the wrath and condemnation of God, and claiming that the message of the Gospel.

I am curious how Christians feel about this, and if what I have said is true to other nonChristians.

I think the important message Jesus is saying here is that we should "go, and sin no more."
Suppose the adulteress were to leave the presence of Jesus and utterly ignore everything He said. Suppose she keeps going in her usual corrupt way, destroying marriage after marriage by encouraging married men to commit adultery with her? Would Jesus be so kind then?

And I think that's the struggle us Christians have: we have too many corrupt and unrepentant sinners to deal with here.

 

[Sitswithamouse]

And I think that's the struggle us Christians have: we have too many corrupt and unrepentant sinners to deal with here.

So is it okay to lie then, based on this premise?

 

[Funny Fundie]

Originally Posted by Funny Fundie

And I think that's the struggle us Christians have: we have too many corrupt and unrepentant sinners to deal with here.​

So is it okay to lie then, based on this premise?

Person A: "The Student Computing Center's purpose is to facilitate students in completing assigned class work."
Person B: "So it's OK for us to contain personal information in our resume, then."

 

[Beanieboy]

I think the important message Jesus is saying here is that we should "go, and sin no more."
Suppose the adulteress were to leave the presence of Jesus and utterly ignore everything He said. Suppose she keeps going in her usual corrupt way, destroying marriage after marriage by encouraging married men to commit adultery with her? Would Jesus be so kind then?

And I think that's the struggle us Christians have: we have too many corrupt and unrepentant sinners to deal with here.

I will have to disagree.
If a bunch of guys were about to kill me, I would be scared. I would know that what I did was wrong, see where it got me, and be really afraid of dying, and really afraid of how much it would hurt. Seeing Christ, I would also know that I broke the law, and be fearful how he would punish me. Then, I would see Christ answer, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Again, I would be afraid, because Christ was sinless. But one by one, I would see the men leave. Then, left alone with Christ, answer that my accusers left, and hear him say, "Neither do I condemn you. You sins have been forgiven. Go and sin no more." I would feel grateful, relieved, not run back to my lover and continue our trist.

It showed that no man can truly judge another.
It humbled the men that thought themselves okay to judge her.
It wisely avoided that trap of making Christ guilty of disobeying Scripture, or breaking Roman law.
It showed that he did not condemn her.
(For that matter, the reader isn't even sure if she is guilty.)
We see that he forgives her sin.
And we see that he lets her go free, telling her to go and sin no more.

To reduce that as a strong rebuke is either twisting scripture, or missing the point.

 

[keith99]

...I have witnessed this in posts, time after time - not just these lies, these deceptions, or misrepresentation, but also of Scripture.

A few times, the woman about to be stoned was quoted as a rebuke: Go, and SIN NO MORE!
However, in the story, as most people understand it, one should not cast the first stone in judgement against another, unless you are without sin yourself.
There is also a very important point - that when Christ asks the woman where her accusers are, and she says that they have left, he says, "Neither do I condemn you," when Christ was without sin, and should have cast the first stone. He didn't. He then forgave her, and allowed her to go, to sin no more.

Does that sound like harsh rebuke?
Or does it twist the scripture to say something that was never intended?
...

Well to me this twisting is either a lie within a lie or a lie within ignorance. There are 4 major families of manuscripts. The woman caught in adultery is only in one, and that the youngest.

Nope, the story is an addition. Many think something written in margin and copied in error into the text.

I can not see the sin no more as a rebuke, or at lesat not a strong one. But I refuse to reference the story, since it will be default taken as scripture. Rather strange that I a non-believer has more concern for the purity of scripture than most Christians.

 

[Rebekka]

As a Christian, I agree with you. It is unethical and not Christ-like to lie. Even if one's motives are "good" (to try and prevent what a given lying person sees as a sin), it isn't acceptable to lie.

Though, I admit, I find it okay to lie to protect one's life or the life of another. If someone came to me and said, I want to beat up Beanieboy (since you are the only other poster in here) and asked me where you were, I wouldn't tell them. If I were a Christian back in the day of Paul or even as late as the time of John of Revelation, I would lie to any Roman soldier who asked me if was a Christian so that they wouldn't kill me or my family. I feel that you can always live and ask God's forgiveness later.

Perhaps such posters feel that they can ask the forgiveness of God later for their lying. But I think that many are just unwilling to believe that their information is faulty, or to take the word of a "sinner" that the information they provide is faulty. I just try to remember that reality disagrees with them, and someday society will move on past this stupid, stupid idea that Gay People are "bad". I'm totally sick of it, but I know that this next generation that is growing up (Generation Z) really seems to believe that it is Okay to be Gay. I think that their children will think of heterosexism like I thought of racism as a child: "a stupid belief held only by those old people who are trying to live in the past".

I agree with WatersMoon.