Lying on the forum

[zippy2006]

'I've been told that...' or 'I read somewhere that...' followed by '...therefore X must hold true'. Is that claim a lie? I don't think so. It's just based on hearsay. Or on a selected version of the truth.

And even facts themselves are slippery little devils. Some judicious cherry picking can change the meaning of an article or a statement completely. I think that's the closest we come to seeing a lie on the forum. When it's not so much a lie as someone disguising the truth. And that's very common.

I tend to think the broader inference can be a form of lying. For example, when someone cherry-picks out of context they often end up lying about the meaning of what their source is saying, although this does not always necessarily amount to a lie. When someone very much desires a source to say one thing, and they twist the words and meaning in order to make it mean what they want it to mean, they are engaged in a subtle form of lying. The lie comes in misconstruing the source material and claiming that it says what it does not say. I agree that this is common, and egregious forms of it would seem to be lying.

 

[Estrid]

I was just now thinking of the game factor in debate before I got to your post. Someone may tell a lie just to see if the other person catches it, or if they can be manipulated down a dead end path. But lying in a debate (to win) would be an empty victory, because its foundation is hot air.

Yet in real life, that's exactly how cult leaders get followers. They figure out how to deceive people by making bold claims that can't be substantiated, such as "an angel appeared to me and said..."

AIG, ICR are great examples of cult leader tactics.

 

[tdidymas]

AIG, ICR are great examples of cult leader tactics.

I was thinking of Muhammed and Joseph Smith.

 

[Ophiolite]

I was just now thinking of the game factor in debate before I got to your post. Someone may tell a lie just to see if the other person catches it, or if they can be manipulated down a dead end path. But lying in a debate (to win) would be an empty victory, because its foundation is hot air.

If the debate is an academic style debate where one is assigned a position to defend, then certain kinds of lie would be part of the repertoire of the debator and a victory would be a real victory. The lie would be analagous to the sacrifice of a piece in chess to lure the opponent into a trap.

I want to reply earlier to your post #42, but I got sidetracked.
You said:

But omitting information isn't a lie. Intentionally speaking false information is a lie

I disagree. Witholding information that is relevant to the proper understanding of a situation is a form of lying. It is an especially invidious form of lying since telling a partial truth creates confidence in the target of the lying that they can trust the lie. So, it's not a matter of omitting information that makes it a lie, but the deliberate omission of relevant information in order to deceive.
You provided an example in your next paragraph about high pressure sales tactics.

1. Telling all the positives and omitting the negatives.

That is lying by omission. And because the omitted fact is invisible it can be difficult to detect. Your tactic of delaying a decision to the following day is an excellent one. If after thinking about the offer you do find it attractive it will still be available the following day, regardless of what they have said. Call them back and say you will sign up, but only if they reduce the price by X%. And you need an answer now, or the deals off. Play them at their own game.

 

[Estrid]

I was thinking of Muhammed and Joseph Smith.

Ami g a great many

 

[zippy2006]

That is lying by omission.

Whether it is possible to lie by omission is a rather complicated topic. One can mislead by omission, but it is always the interlocutor who must draw the false conclusion, and in this it differs from lying simpliciter. Here enters the arduous topic of "mental reservation."

Here is what Aquinas says:

Just as a man lies when he signifies by word that which he is not, yet lies not when he refrains from saying what he is, for this is sometimes lawful; so also does a man dissemble, when by outward signs of deeds or things he signifies that which he is not, yet he dissembles not if he omits to signify what he is. (ST IIaIIae, Q. 111, A. 1, ad4)​

 

[Palmfever]

In this venue it allows more time to formulate a response. There have been occasions when I walk away from an encounter my thoughts are more organized given a minute of reflection. With me, often I'm searching for a friendly, witty, quick line and I keep moving on.

Your omission when confronted with a perceived pushy individual may have been to avoid conflict.
Or, an attempt at diplomacy which is the art of telling someone to go to hell and have them happy to be on their way.

James, 1:19
Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.

 

[Ophiolite]

Whether it is possible to lie by omission is a rather complicated topic. One can mislead by omission, but it is always the interlocutor who must draw the false conclusion, and in this it differs from lying simpliciter. Here enters the arduous topic of "mental reservation."

Here is what Aquinas says:

Just as a man lies when he signifies by word that which he is not, yet lies not when he refrains from saying what he is, for this is sometimes lawful; so also does a man dissemble, when by outward signs of deeds or things he signifies that which he is not, yet he dissembles not if he omits to signify what he is. (ST IIaIIae, Q. 111, A. 1, ad4)​

I think we can agree there are many kinds of lie, but ultimately they may all be covered by the group name "lie".

I agree that lying by omission is a complicated topic, but I felt I addressed that with three conditions that must be met for the omission to be considered a lie:

1. The omission must be relevant and important to the matter in hand.
2. The omission must be deliberate.
3. The intent of the omission must be to deceive.

I suggest it is irrelevant that it is the interlocutor (not a word I use in conversation, since I cannot pronounce it correctly) who draws the false conclusion, if they have been deliberately manipulated to do so by the lier through omitting the information.


As for Thomas Aquinas I shall add these two:

Shakespeare has Richard III say to the queen, who has proposed lying about her daughter's true father, in order to save the daughter's life "Wrong not her birth, she is a Royal Princess". Advising the queen against lying is ironic coming from the man who lies and manipulates his way to the English throne.

In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry fools Lucius Malfoy into freeing his house-elf Dobby, by a lie of omission.

I only mention these along with Thomas so I can drop the mind-numbingly awful remark "I don't normally take my ethical guidance from any Tom, Dick or Harry!"

 

[zippy2006]

In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry fools Lucius Malfoy into freeing his house-elf Dobby, by a lie of omission.

In this scene? How so?

(Incidentally, I think the film adaptation botched the logic of this scene with respect to Dobby.)

I think we can agree there are many kinds of lie, but ultimately they may all be covered by the group name "lie".

I agree that lying by omission is a complicated topic, but I felt I addressed that with three conditions that must be met for the omission to be considered a lie:

1. The omission must be relevant and important to the matter in hand.
2. The omission must be deliberate.
3. The intent of the omission must be to deceive.

I suggest it is irrelevant that it is the interlocutor (not a word I use in conversation, since I cannot pronounce it correctly) who draws the false conclusion, if they have been deliberately manipulated to do so by the lier through omitting the information.

I think it comes down to the definition of lying. Here is Merriam-Webster:

• 1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
• 2: to create a false or misleading impression

If we define "lie" according to definition (1) then it is probably not possible to lie by omission or dissimulation. If we define "lie" according to definition (2) then it is. The interesting thing here is that Thomas Aquinas seems to agree with you, but the later Jesuit tradition disagrees.

According to your three conditions you would seem to define a lie as a deliberate deception, no? So if I am going to retire, and I dress up as Leonardo DiCaprio to announce my retirement, then on your definition I have lied because I mislead/deceived even though I was telling the truth, right? (I led others to falsely believe that DiCaprio is retiring.)

 

[Ophiolite]

In this scene? How so?

(Incidentally, I think the film adaptation botched the logic of this scene with respect to Dobby.)

I've seen the film more recently than read the book, so my recollection is from the film. If I am misremembering the details then it may have been a flawed example. Harry has concealed the sock in the book which he returns to Lucius. Lucius has no intention of doing something demeaning like carrying it when a slave is at hand, so he passes it to Dobby. However, the rules stipulate that giving an item of clothing to a house-elf frees them. The act of giving the book to Lucius knowing he was likely to pass it to Dobby was a lie by omission.

According to your three conditions you would seem to define a lie as a deliberate deception, no? So if I am going to retire, and I dress up as Leonardo DiCaprio to announce my retirement, then on your definition I have lied because I mislead/deceived even though I was telling the truth, right?

I'm not following this. In dressing up as DiCaprio are you wanting your audience to think you are DiCaprio? In which case you are lying by omission when you fail to tell your audience you are not DiCaprio and he is not retiring.
If you are dressing up as DiCaprio, but not attempting to make the audience think you are then your retirement statement is true and there is no lie.

Lies of omission are recognised as being lies in several sources I've looked at. If you wish me to relocate a couple and post them here I can.

Edit: It's off-topic, but I suppose I can derail my own thread. What was the botched logic in the film? I've always treated the film and book as two related, but not identical works. I thought the films did an excellent job of capturing the spirit of the books.

 

[zippy2006]

The act of giving the book to Lucius knowing he was likely to pass it to Dobby was a lie by omission.

Okay, but what is the definition of lying you have in mind? Intentional deception? Is the argument that Harry intentionally deceived Lucius and therefore lied?

I'm not following this. In dressing up as DiCaprio are you wanting your audience to think you are DiCaprio? In which case you are lying by omission when you fail to tell your audience you are not DiCaprio and he is not retiring.

Yes, that is what I meant. I agree that this would be a lie of omission according to Merriam-Webster's second definition, but I have usually thought of a lie as involving a spoken falsehood or false assertion, like in the first definition. I suppose the relevant definition will depend on the context at hand.

For example, if I dress up as DiCaprio and simply walk down the street, hoping that people will see me and mistake me for DiCaprio, am I therefore lying? Would it be right to report this event as, "I saw a liar on Marshal street"?

Edit: It's off-topic, but I suppose I can derail my own thread. What was the botched logic in the film? I've always treated the film and book as two related, but not identical works. I thought the films did an excellent job of capturing the spirit of the books.

In the film I don't think Lucius gives Dobby an article of clothing, whereas in the book he (arguably) does.

For example, suppose there is a book with $500 hidden inside, and I do not know about the money. I give you the book. Have I given you $500? Would it be right for you to say, "Wow, Zippy is so generous. He gave me $500!" If not, then I don't think Lucius can be said to have given Dobby the sock hidden inside the book.

The film director probably found Rowling's scene clumsy. The gift of an old sock is conspicuous and unlikely. Therefore they probably added the book element to Harry's gift for the sake of plausibility. But the added plausibility seems to undercut the idea that a sock is what is being given/gifted by Lucius, and presumably this is why Rowling preferred the implausibility of Harry's sock-gift. Of course one could argue that in the book Lucius also fails to give Dobby a sock in any meaningful sense, but I'd say the idea that Lucius gives Dobby a sock is more believable on the book's rendering than on the film's.

I only mention these along with Thomas so I can drop the mind-numbingly awful remark "I don't normally take my ethical guidance from any Tom, Dick or Harry!"

Lol - I missed the full force of this the first time around.

 

[Bradskii]

I only mention these along with Thomas so I can drop the mind-numbingly awful remark "I don't normally take my ethical guidance from any Tom, Dick or Harry!"

Well played, sir.

 

[durangodawood]

On the forum i see no reason to ever lie.
It's kind of like cheating at solitaire , it would
spoil the game to just make things up.

No reason for you to ever lie.

But some people are here to play a different game, a political game, in which the goal is to keep the issues that motivate turnout on your "side" burning hot in people's minds. Lies work when youre playing that game.

 

[GodBeMercifulToMeASinner]

Lying on the internet, lying in person, either way, can’t respect anyone who isn’t real.

And the honest truth is, I was a pagan most of my life..hung around some rough people. All kinds of very sinful people. Drug dealers, gangsters, serial fornicators, hardcore drug users and hwavy drinkers..even occultists and aesthetic satanists. And the truth is, the most deceptive, phony people, the least trustworthy of all I have ever encountered were ‘Christians’. Now I know what the older members of my family were talking about LOL. And that explains why the religious system is loaded with abuses of many kinds..spiritual, financial, emotional, sexual, even child abuse. It’s full of hypocrites and liars..‘religious narcissists’ is a term I have heard that fits. People who will smile in your face as they pee on your shoes LOL. At least the roughneck pagans I used to hang with weren’t hypocrites, faking piety. And I believe many of them will come to Christ at some point. And I know many of them were once off put by manmade religion. I can understand that.

That’s not to say I haven’t encountered some very great Christian people, I have encountered some real ones..kind, honest, loving, genuine people. But my experience has been; you’re more likely to find a true friend in a jail cell, or some hellhole bar where the ‘sinners’ are at, than you are at some religious setting.

 

[Ophiolite]

Lying on the internet, lying in person, either way, can’t respect anyone who isn’t real.

And the honest truth is, I was a pagan most of my life..hung around some rough people. All kinds of very sinful people. Drug dealers, gangsters, serial fornicators, hardcore drug users and hwavy drinkers..even occultists and aesthetic satanists. And the truth is, the most deceptive, phony people, the least trustworthy of all I have ever encountered were ‘Christians’. Now I know what the older members of my family were talking about LOL. And that explains why the religious system is loaded with abuses of many kinds..spiritual, financial, emotional, sexual, even child abuse. It’s full of hypocrites and liars..‘religious narcissists’ is a term I have heard that fits. People who will smile in your face as they pee on your shoes LOL. At least the roughneck pagans I used to hang with weren’t hypocrites, faking piety. And I believe many of them will come to Christ at some point. And I know many of them were once off put by manmade religion. I can understand that.

That’s not to say I haven’t encountered some very great Christian people, I have encountered some real ones..kind, honest, loving, genuine people. But my experience has been; you’re more likely to find a true friend in a jail cell, or some hellhole bar where the ‘sinners’ are at, than you are at some religious setting.

Thank you for sharing that honest post. It's the only post I've read on this forum in the past year that has induced a small tinge of regret that I abandoned Christianity. Sadly, I've lost count of those with the opposite effect.

There are many sincere Christians on the forum, whom I can fully respect, even when we may differ radically on certain specifics. Then there are the others. . . . . .

 

[GodBeMercifulToMeASinner]

Thank you for sharing that honest post. It's the only post I've read on this forum in the past year that has induced a small tinge of regret that I abandoned Christianity. Sadly, I've lost count of those with the opposite effect.

There are many sincere Christians on the forum, whom I can fully respect, even when we may differ radically on certain specifics. Then there are the others. . . . . .

Hey partner, let me just put it this way..the main adversaries of a Christian are the fakes, the wolves in sheepskin..nothing will test a christian’s faith more..some are so wicked hypocritical they will have you question your Faith. At the same time these hypocrites are a great blessing to one’s faith..it’s hard to explain really. But I’ve dealt with some real snakes in my time and I consider them a tremendous blessing in my walk with the Lord.

Read Matthew chapter 23..and remember, ‘as it once was, it will be again’ (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Have a good read of that chapter and meditate on it..that’s what the Lord Jesus Christ thinks of manmade religion haha. Also, read the parable of the prodigal son..and also maybe you can relate to this one:

“But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.”
—Matthew 21:28-31

It ain’t how ya start it’s how ya finish!

Remember..Christ’s greatest enemies during His earthly ministry were not the publicans, harlots, Roman government, the drunks, sorcerers, and gluttons, etc..they were the religious hypocrites!

“And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”
—Luke 18:9-14

I also love this passage very much:

“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”
—Matthew 25:31-46

Easy to see what the Lord Jesus Christ is about, and it ain’t religious rituals in a fancy building full of stuffy people LOL..I understand if some may have discouraged you, but remember:

“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”
—Matthew 18:6

God doesn’t dwell in buildings..He brought me to Him one evening as I was neck deep in sin, surrounded by a cloud of marijuana smoke and warring with 2 different groups of enemies LOL, and I had little to zero religious experience my whole life.

I pray and believe some day He will draw you in, remember..it is Christ whom we are to go by as an example, not the flawed mortal humans, many of which never had that Luke 18:13-14 moment in their life.

“ For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.”
—2 Corinthians 7:10

“The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.“
—Psalm 34:18

 

[Estrid]

Hey partner, let me just put it this way..the main adversaries of a Christian are the fakes, the wolves in sheepskin..nothing will test a christian’s faith more..some are so wicked hypocritical they will have you question your Faith. At the same time these hypocrites are a great blessing to one’s faith..it’s hard to explain really. But I’ve dealt with some real snakes in my time and I consider them a tremendous blessing in my walk with the Lord.

Read Matthew chapter 23..and remember, ‘as it once was, it will be again’ (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Have a good read of that chapter and meditate on it..that’s what the Lord Jesus Christ thinks of manmade religion haha. Also, read the parable of the prodigal son..and also maybe you can relate to this one:

“But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.”
—Matthew 21:28-31

It ain’t how ya start it’s how ya finish!

Remember..Christ’s greatest enemies during His earthly ministry were not the publicans, harlots, Roman government, the drunks, sorcerers, and gluttons, etc..they were the religious hypocrites!

“And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”
—Luke 18:9-14

I also love this passage very much:

“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”
—Matthew 25:31-46

Easy to see what the Lord Jesus Christ is about, and it ain’t religious rituals in a fancy building full of stuffy people LOL..I understand if some may have discouraged you, but remember:

“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”
—Matthew 18:6

God doesn’t dwell in buildings..He brought me to Him one evening as I was neck deep in sin, surrounded by a cloud of marijuana smoke and warring with 2 different groups of enemies LOL, and I had little to zero religious experience my whole life.

I pray and believe some day He will draw you in, remember..it is Christ whom we are to go by as an example, not the flawed mortal humans, many of which never had that Luke 18:13-14 moment in their life.

“ For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.”
—2 Corinthians 7:10

“The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.“
—Psalm 34:18

(It is) "Wicked to make someone question their faith"

Are you sure?

 

[Ophiolite]

Easy to see what the Lord Jesus Christ is about, and it ain’t religious rituals in a fancy building full of stuffy people LOL..I understand if some may have discouraged you, but remember:

Thank you for your post. I'll send you a pm to expand on this point.

 

[GodBeMercifulToMeASinner]

(It is) "Wicked to make someone question their faith"

Are you sure?

Where did I say that? That isn’t what I said at all. What I said was I have come across such wicked hypocrites (‘Christian’ imposters) it even made me question my faith.

Say a Christian is having a discussion with a non-believer and the non-believer says something thought-provoking. Causes for a Christian to ponder..that isn’t what I meant at all if that is what you thought.

What I was talking about is ‘Christian’ hypocrites who’s essence is so polar opposite to Christ and His teachings, it makes you wonder..why are so many non-believers exhibiting more Galatians 5:22-23 fruits of the Spirit than many if not most churchgoers I’ve encountered? What’s going on here? It’s hard to explain in detail, but all I can say is that the devil’s preferred weapon in his tool belt to harm a Christian’s walk with the Lord is imposter ‘christians’. That is no shot at the unbelieving at all, Ive nothing against them. I can understand why many of them hold their views.

Thank you for your post. I'll send you a pm to expand on this point.

Sounds good partner I can likely get right back to ya after work.:

 

[Estrid]

Where did I say that? That isn’t what I said at all. What I said was I have come across such wicked hypocrites (‘Christian’ imposters) it even made me question my faith.

Say a Christian is having a discussion with a non-believer and the non-believer says something thought-provoking. Causes for a Christian to ponder..that isn’t what I meant at all if that is what you thought.

What I was talking about is ‘Christian’ hypocrites who’s essence is so polar opposite to Christ and His teachings, it makes you wonder..why are so many non-believers exhibiting more Galatians 5:22-23 fruits of the Spirit than many if not most churchgoers I’ve encountered? What’s going on here? It’s hard to explain in detail, but all I can say is that the devil’s preferred weapon in his tool belt to harm a Christian’s walk with the Lord is imposter ‘christians’. That is no shot at the unbelieving at all, Ive nothing against them. I can understand why many of them hold their views.



Sounds good partner I can likely get right back to ya after work.:

I don't see the difference.
Is it wicked for a person to cause someone else's
Faith to be questioned?

Is there anything that should never be questioned,
any belief that is impossible to be mistaken?