Lying for Religion

[Resha Caner]

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I do recall an incident in my recent past that I found very curious. Our division at work was doing a "get to know people" segment during the division meeting. You were supposed to submit three sentences - two true and one a lie. People had to guess who the sentences referred to, and which one was a lie. My 3 were:

1) Has a degree in history (note that my job is engineering)
2) Once set an engine in a test cell on fire
3) Is a Yankees fan

People remembered me talking a lot at lunch about history and baseball, so they guessed it was me, and so picked #2 as the lie. They all agreed it made sense because #2 seemed the most outrageous.

Well, truth is, #3 is the lie. I'm a KC Royals fan and I despise the Yankees. I thought it very interesting how they processed their "knowledge" of me and how they decided which was the lie.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I will flatly say that lying is wrong in the nature of sinful. Which is not to say I've never lied. However, I am ashamed of having done so and I find as time goes on I am more and more careful about what I do say.

For instance, had the hawk landed on my shoulder, I probably would not relate that at all. At most, I would tell the story only to people who know me and know I would not make it up. As mentioned, it's a bit far-fetched. I did have an experience somewhat similar at one time; but since I'm the only witness, telling it is pointless in my view.

I've been an 'observing' Christian for many years now. I've heard people give 'testimonies' which sound a bit like a mixture of bragging and an attempt of 'oneupsmanship'. I've heard more such stories from non-Christians in a non-church setting, just for the record. My opinion is such exaggeration (or outright lying!) is more a function of being human than being a Christian.

I've had several atheists tell me lies about their motivation as an atheist. I can say this with certainty because over the course of time, I've talked to the same person more than once and the story changes. Most telling is when the person at first claims to be atheist due to logic and observational reasons, then at some point has an emotional break and relates the great emotional trauma - usually an actual trauma, by the way - which led to them rejecting God.

I spent twenty-eight years as a lawman. I've been lied to by suspects, co-workers, supervisors. Don't get me started on attorneys. Much of my job was determining who was lying to me, and then determining if the lie was something I needed to investigate or of no consequence relative to my duties.

All that aside, I am deeply offended when someone claiming to be a Christian lies about much anything. Following in God's example does not encourage lying. Repeating unverified claims as true is about as bad. Which is why I am deeply incensed when some factions lie - or repeat nonsense and claim 'plausible deniability' - regarding matters pertaining to Christianity.

If someone asked me my reason for being an atheist, I'd tell them something similar to what you've heard...logic, reason, evidence.

If someone asked me why I became an atheist, I'd relate to them the story about when it first came to my mind. It had more to do then with the nature of authority, my view of mankind in general, the relationship between power and truth...it would definitely sound more emotional than the first answer. So there's a difference in the reasons why I became an atheist, and why I'm an atheist today, because over time I learned more and gained better reasons for being an atheist. That isn't to say that I don't still believe those first few reasons that I became an atheist, I do...but I wouldn't list them first if someone asked me why I'm an atheist today because they make for a poor argument. They're mostly personal beliefs based upon personal observations.

In the atheists you're referring to, are you sure their answers don't differ for similar reasons? The fact that why someone became an atheist and why they are currently an atheist may differ doesn't necessarily mean they lied...they are two different questions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not sure if you can call most such stories "lies." They're probably experiences that grew in the telling, and turned into stories. My husband tells stories about the haunted house where he grew up. His younger bro, an evangelical, and his older bro, agnostic, tell the same stories. The father, who is an atheist, and the mother, who is an evangelical, agree that the house was, indeed, haunted.

I don't believe them. I think the stories grew in the telling, and members of the family bolstered one another so now they all have some really cool and creepy stories about this house. However, when they tell these stories, they are not lying. They fully believe that their house was haunted.

Maybe the house was haunted lol.

This kind of relates to the imperfection of memory I mentioned earlier. There is a phenomenon (I forget what it's called) where repeated exaggeration (or lies) get repeated so often over so long that they actually affect the memory and the person honestly believes them true. For example...

I heard what sounded like a voice and saw a spooky shadow becomes...
I heard a whisper and saw a shadowy person becomes...
I heard someone whisper my name and saw a shadowy old lady becomes...
I heard someone whisper my name and saw a spooky old lady...

The last one gets repeated often enough to the point where over time they can distinctly remember what the whispered voice sounded like and what the ghostly old lady looked like.

The brain is a weird thing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is shocking that someone would tell a story about something that could actually happen. No wonder you thought he was lying.

As I said, my reaction would not have been he was lying (about the hawk), but that it could well have been wishful thinking on his part (to take the job). Discernment is a tricky subject.



It's not something one just goes searching the Internet for on a whim, but since it came up: Cooper’s hawk lands on Royal Oak police car (with video)

Still, your reaction is understandable. I think your reaction is due to the fact that it's an experience you've never had. And yet, if hawks were landing on people every day, how would it be a sign?



As I said, the way some people turn Christianity into divination bothers me. I know of people who use the Bible like a roulette wheel - pick a verse and that's what God wants you to do. I'm quite sure it doesn't work that way.

I am also aware of instances where I am quite certain God was involved.

However, I can't give you a recipe that defines the difference.

Sure, it's possible lol. People who claim to have been abducted by aliens could also be possibly telling the truth. Saw Bigfoot? It's possible... The realm of "possible" is far and wide...but the fact that something is "possible" doesn't factor very much into whether or not I believe it's "true".

I guess I couldn't read the article you linked because I got sent to the mobile site and it's not very well built. From the title though, it sounds like the bird landed on a car. Did it land on the cop as well?

Well if you can think of one of the instances you didn't believe... could you explain why?

 

[juvenissun]

I already mentioned why I thought he created the story

I don't think he would've told it if he thought his new congregation was going to think him a liar. Even in a hypothetical scenario where it was the truth, I don't think he would've shared it if he thought no one would believe him. Quite the opposite, i think he expected those people to believe him. Church is a place where the normal rules for what you believe and don't believe are suspended...examining the rules that replace the normal rules are really what this thread is all about.

I don't think what he did was foolish. If the majority of his congregation believed the story, it was a useful lie to say the least.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting by the possibility of investigating his story. You think he lied to me about a lie he told his congregation? I don't see what he has to gain by that...

Now you expand the allegation. You think Christians in the whole church are foolish because they used unreasonable rules to accept lies.

Your criteria won't work. You are wrong at the very beginning. A sincere witness can not be a lie no matter how ridiculous it might sound.

 

[juvenissun]

I've never heard a testimony which I believed was the result of any sort of supernatural event/divine influence/god...and while I think a few of the ones I've heard/read are lies, the majority of them I think the storyteller genuinely believed what they were saying.

Why is the possibility that a story/testimony is a lie not a problem? Isn't it a problem if you believe in a lie?

ALL witnesses to God are supernatural. This is the part of definition of witness.
And I am sure you have never really believed any of them. Otherwise, you would have been a Christian already.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Now you expand the allegation. You think Christians in the whole church are foolish because they used unreasonable rules to accept lies.

Your criteria won't work. You are wrong at the very beginning. A sincere witness can not be a lie no matter how ridiculous it might sound.

Lol oh no! You figured me out!

Seriously, Juve, I'll explain this once...then I'm going to ask you not to keep posting on this thread. I don't know what it is about me that upsets you so much, but the conclusions you're jumping to are ridiculous.

All religions (or nearly all) hold their religious beliefs at a different set of criteria than anything else. It's not something new, I'm hardly breaking ground by saying it.

If a Muslim told you that Allah appeared to him and told him to disown his daughter for marrying a Jew...you probably wouldn't believe he was telling you the truth. Yet if a christian man told you he prayed to god about his gay son and god told him not to speak with him anymore...you might believe every word of it. You might not, and that depends on your take on christianity...but it doesn't change my point.

Religious claims that represent religious beliefs that are wildly different than yours, you dismiss...as do most religious people. The closer those claims are to your personal religious beliefs... the more likely you are to believe them.

Yet, some claims made even within their own church some people have a hard time believing. That's what I'm interested in here...where those differences lie.

 

[Ana the Ist]

ALL witnesses to God are supernatural. This is the part of definition of witness.
And I am sure you have never really believed any of them. Otherwise, you would have been a Christian already.

Not all witnesses involve the supernatural. I've heard plenty of them that were nothing more than everyday mundane occurrences that the person just decided was somehow an act of god. To an outside observer, they would appear as if nothing out of the ordinary happened at all.

Right lol, I never believed any of them...just like you never believed any supernatural claims made by Hindus or you would be one of them. They may be the exact same kind of claim with the exact same kind of "evidence" but you don't believe them unless they are christian. It's not exactly hard to understand why...

There are christians, however, some on this very thread who've disbelieved claims from those who are not only christian... but of their very own church. That's about as similar in religious beliefs as you can get. The criteria for believing or disbelieving these claims is what I'm interested in...though it seems like a difficult topic for christians to discuss with an outsider.

 

[Resha Caner]

If someone asked me why I became an atheist, I'd relate to them the story about when it first came to my mind. It had more to do then with the nature of authority, my view of mankind in general, the relationship between power and truth...it would definitely sound more emotional than the first answer. So there's a difference in the reasons why I became an atheist, and why I'm an atheist today, because over time I learned more and gained better reasons for being an atheist. That isn't to say that I don't still believe those first few reasons that I became an atheist, I do...but I wouldn't list them first if someone asked me why I'm an atheist today because they make for a poor argument. They're mostly personal beliefs based upon personal observations.

This is interesting. I would probably say something similar - that my reasons for first accepting Christ are probably not very convincing as an argument. I think I have better ones. As such, I have some questions for you: If your reasons for becoming an atheist are not a convincing argument, why do you think they are still valid? Or, why are they still convincing to you? Why do you think your later arguments are better? Have they persuaded someone to convert?

Well if you can think of one of the instances you didn't believe... could you explain why?

As I said, there is no recipe. It's a variety of reasons. It could be they were true and the fault is mine. It could be because I don't trust the person. The answer that might best suit this conversation is that 1) In studying the Bible I noticed "signs" are pretty rare - localized to specific people in specific times and places. It's not like every believer in the Bible is working miracles. 2) Those signs have a very specific purpose in God's plan. Essentially, they are all pointing to Christ. So, when someone prays regarding which minivan they should buy, and receives an answer (yes, that's one I've heard), I have to wonder how that points to Christ. 3) (the one I've mentioned several times now) The Bible talks a lot about God's means of interacting with us, and people often seem to be pulling in gnostic, mystical, or other pagan practices when they speak of the signs they think they've received.

Right lol, I never believed any of them...just like you never believed any supernatural claims made by Hindus or you would be one of them.

In my case this wouldn't be an accurate statement. I've noted a distinction in our reactions to the hawk story several times, and you've never responded to it, so I don't know if it's registered. It is not the event I question, but its interpretation. So, that weird (unexplainable) things happen to people (Hindus and Muslims included) is not something I dispute.

 

[bhsmte]

When people latch onto what appear to be lies in regards to religious beliefs, it is really more to protect their own psyche, then it is to protect the actual lie and or religion.

We have all experienced the discomfort in acknowledging (somewhere in our minds) something we believed to be true to be false. The more important the belief is to us, the more discomfort is involved. Some people, are better equipped to handle the discomfort than others and this will determine whether they keep clinging to something, that is likely false.

 

[juvenissun]

Not all witnesses involve the supernatural. I've heard plenty of them that were nothing more than everyday mundane occurrences that the person just decided was somehow an act of god. To an outside observer, they would appear as if nothing out of the ordinary happened at all.

Right lol, I never believed any of them...just like you never believed any supernatural claims made by Hindus or you would be one of them. They may be the exact same kind of claim with the exact same kind of "evidence" but you don't believe them unless they are christian. It's not exactly hard to understand why...

There are christians, however, some on this very thread who've disbelieved claims from those who are not only christian... but of their very own church. That's about as similar in religious beliefs as you can get. The criteria for believing or disbelieving these claims is what I'm interested in...though it seems like a difficult topic for christians to discuss with an outsider.

"God tells me to buy a candle ... and by the candle light, I found my lost ring on the attic". It is all legitimate for you to call this witness supernatural and is probably a lie. Is this a lie better than "An angel appeared to me and told me to buy a candle ... " ?

This is why the Lord Jesus says that a believer and a non-believer can not bear the same yoke together. I can understand you. But you can never understand me.

 

[juvenissun]

Lol oh no! You figured me out!

Seriously, Juve, I'll explain this once...then I'm going to ask you not to keep posting on this thread. I don't know what it is about me that upsets you so much, but the conclusions you're jumping to are ridiculous.

All religions (or nearly all) hold their religious beliefs at a different set of criteria than anything else. It's not something new, I'm hardly breaking ground by saying it.

If a Muslim told you that Allah appeared to him and told him to disown his daughter for marrying a Jew...you probably wouldn't believe he was telling you the truth. Yet if a christian man told you he prayed to god about his gay son and god told him not to speak with him anymore...you might believe every word of it. You might not, and that depends on your take on christianity...but it doesn't change my point.

Religious claims that represent religious beliefs that are wildly different than yours, you dismiss...as do most religious people. The closer those claims are to your personal religious beliefs... the more likely you are to believe them.

Yet, some claims made even within their own church some people have a hard time believing. That's what I'm interested in here...where those differences lie.

I will believe that he did say something real. At least I won't call him a lier. You think I do not care for any other religion except Christianity? Look at my avatar. I know Daoism much more than you do on Christianity.

No harsh feeling on you. I simply refute your argument.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is interesting. I would probably say something similar - that my reasons for first accepting Christ are probably not very convincing as an argument. I think I have better ones. As such, I have some questions for you: If your reasons for becoming an atheist are not a convincing argument, why do you think they are still valid? Or, why are they still convincing to you? Why do you think your later arguments are better? Have they persuaded someone to convert?



As I said, there is no recipe. It's a variety of reasons. It could be they were true and the fault is mine. It could be because I don't trust the person. The answer that might best suit this conversation is that 1) In studying the Bible I noticed "signs" are pretty rare - localized to specific people in specific times and places. It's not like every believer in the Bible is working miracles. 2) Those signs have a very specific purpose in God's plan. Essentially, they are all pointing to Christ. So, when someone prays regarding which minivan they should buy, and receives an answer (yes, that's one I've heard), I have to wonder how that points to Christ. 3) (the one I've mentioned several times now) The Bible talks a lot about God's means of interacting with us, and people often seem to be pulling in gnostic, mystical, or other pagan practices when they speak of the signs they think they've received.



In my case this wouldn't be an accurate statement. I've noted a distinction in our reactions to the hawk story several times, and you've never responded to it, so I don't know if it's registered. It is not the event I question, but its interpretation. So, that weird (unexplainable) things happen to people (Hindus and Muslims included) is not something I dispute.

I probably should have said they aren't as convincing... I don't use them in a discussion like this because they aren't based in logic, just personal observations, and I know the fault those can carry. That should tell you how they differ from later arguments. I'm sure someone somewhere has been convinced of the same thinking.

I certainly think that "weird things" happen to christians as well...I just don't think they happen because of the reasons that christians think they happen. I'm sure you don't think that a "weird thing" that happens to a Hindu happens because of Shiva...you probably have your own explanation for whatever it is they experienced.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

In the atheists you're referring to, are you sure their answers don't differ for similar reasons?

Pretty sure.

These were people with whom I had a personal relationship over a period of time. Several months in the case of one I can remember. More than two discussions in that period of time. The discussions lasted more than twenty minutes at least an in one case nearly two hours.

Not only do I base my conclusions on only what they said, but how they said it. Their body language and extreme reaction to my observations. (Things hard to detect in this environment.) Also, the one I mention otherwise seemed to be 'functional within normal parameters' in terms of emotional and mental standing. I don't think of any of them as 'crazy'.

What I said is not based on two conversations of three minutes each, if you please.

So what do I think about you? No conclusion. For that matter, even if I published the theory that YOU were 'really' motivated by some emotional experienced; so what? You're going to be unduly influenced by the opinion of one man?

Truthfully, if you were, I would offer that in evidence of your susceptibility to emotional influences.

Allow me to point out a distinction between us and our 'motives'. I grew up in a Christian home and have attended church practically all my life. I formally became a Christian at the age of nine.

One could easily conclude my belief in God is merely the influence - 'brainwashing' in a kind way - of my upbringing. I have to admit that must have some influence on my choices.

However, since then I have a relationship with God. I have contact with God, and not as a disembodied voice that gives me instructions at random moments. I suppose someone could suggest I'm schizoid from this. That has occurred to me, by the way. Still, I have no doubt about the existence of and the connection with God. I have changed in ways that are not of my own preference. All of which, I admit, are subjective in terms of 'evidence'.

Here's the difference. Surely, you have no serious connection with 'nothingness'. You are convinced (lacking a better term) there is no God. But you cannot begin to claim a connection with 'no-God'. That isn't a challenge or a judgement, it's just a logical deduction.

I 'know' God exists in the same way I 'know' I am born a human male and citizen of the United States. I cannot say I 'know' unicorns do not exist in the same way. Nor can anyone else.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Pretty sure.

These were people with whom I had a personal relationship over a period of time. Several months in the case of one I can remember. More than two discussions in that period of time. The discussions lasted more than twenty minutes at least an in one case nearly two hours.

Not only do I base my conclusions on only what they said, but how they said it. Their body language and extreme reaction to my observations. (Things hard to detect in this environment.) Also, the one I mention otherwise seemed to be 'functional within normal parameters' in terms of emotional and mental standing. I don't think of any of them as 'crazy'.

What I said is not based on two conversations of three minutes each, if you please.

So what do I think about you? No conclusion. For that matter, even if I published the theory that YOU were 'really' motivated by some emotional experienced; so what? You're going to be unduly influenced by the opinion of one man?

Truthfully, if you were, I would offer that in evidence of your susceptibility to emotional influences.

Allow me to point out a distinction between us and our 'motives'. I grew up in a Christian home and have attended church practically all my life. I formally became a Christian at the age of nine.

One could easily conclude my belief in God is merely the influence - 'brainwashing' in a kind way - of my upbringing. I have to admit that must have some influence on my choices.

However, since then I have a relationship with God. I have contact with God, and not as a disembodied voice that gives me instructions at random moments. I suppose someone could suggest I'm schizoid from this. That has occurred to me, by the way. Still, I have no doubt about the existence of and the connection with God. I have changed in ways that are not of my own preference. All of which, I admit, are subjective in terms of 'evidence'.

Here's the difference. Surely, you have no serious connection with 'nothingness'. You are convinced (lacking a better term) there is no God. But you cannot begin to claim a connection with 'no-God'. That isn't a challenge or a judgement, it's just a logical deduction.

I 'know' God exists in the same way I 'know' I am born a human male and citizen of the United States. I cannot say I 'know' unicorns do not exist in the same way. Nor can anyone else.

Well, I managed to follow what you're saying up until about that last paragraph lol. I don't see how you could "know" god exists in the same way you know you're a human male (something I can check at this very moment...yup, still there) or know that you're a citizen of the U.S...

I would say you're right in that I don't have a connection to nothingness...I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at by that though.

You're certainly entitled to come to whatever conclusions you like about why I became an atheist. It would be hard to do without knowing me. You wouldn't be the first christian to decide that most (or all) atheists believe what they do for emotional reasons... I think I understand that. Like most christians, your "connection to god" is mostly emotional...and most christians who come to doubt their faith at some point in their life, the reasons for that doubt are emotional. So it stands to reason you'd look at people who don't believe and in spite of their explanations for why...you assume their reasons are also emotional.

I'll give you a chance to show me wrong though...is your "connection to god" more than emotional? Do you hear voices or see him? Or is your connection related mostly to a "feeling" you associate with god?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I will believe that he did say something real. At least I won't call him a lier. You think I do not care for any other religion except Christianity? Look at my avatar. I know Daoism much more than you do on Christianity.

No harsh feeling on you. I simply refute your argument.

Judging by your reply, you don't understand my "argument"...your reply really has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say you don't care about any religion, I said you aren't Hindu and the reasons why are fairly obvious.

Would you care to respond to that or would you prefer to keep building strawmen?

 

[Ana the Ist]

"God tells me to buy a candle ... and by the candle light, I found my lost ring on the attic". It is all legitimate for you to call this witness supernatural and is probably a lie. Is this a lie better than "An angel appeared to me and told me to buy a candle ... " ?

This is why the Lord Jesus says that a believer and a non-believer can not bear the same yoke together. I can understand you. But you can never understand me.

I certainly don't understand every christian...but I think I understand you pretty well. You're claiming you believe every story, every testimony, every supernatural claims made by a christian no matter how far-fetched or ridiculous it sounds?

 

[juvenissun]

I certainly don't understand every christian...but I think I understand you pretty well. You're claiming you believe every story, every testimony, every supernatural claims made by a christian no matter how far-fetched or ridiculous it sounds?

Of course I did not say that.

What I said is: When we listen to a testimonial witness (does not matter in what religion), we should learn how to understand it, instead of rejecting it as a lie. One is a positive attitude and the other is a negative one.

 

[juvenissun]

Judging by your reply, you don't understand my "argument"...your reply really has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say you don't care about any religion, I said you aren't Hindu and the reasons why are fairly obvious.

Would you care to respond to that or would you prefer to keep building strawmen?

A Hinduist might tell me that he sees his god on or in a tree and the god is suggesting something to him.

I would agree that he sees something on or in the tree. I can also accept that he received some information from the tree. All that do not violate my faith system except that I don't think it is done by my God. And according to my faith system, what he said are all possible.

I definitely won't call him a lier, even he could be lying.

 

[Davian]

...

I 'know' God exists in the same way I 'know' I am born a human male and citizen of the United States.
...

I would describe my experience with Santa in a similar manner. I still get goosebumps when I think of it.