HEY ALL

LIES are made to control people or situations


dgrimm60

We do know that Jesus never lied to further his cause. He suffered the ultimate penilty for stating up for what he believed.

pk

If it is acceptable to use a lie to promote or defend truth in one case then is must be acceptable in all cases. By example Jesus Christ NEVER lied to either promote truth or for any self-preservation purpose; to promote truth by using a lie (as stated by Paul) defeats the purpose of truth - that is to testify to Jesus Christ; to promote self-preservation by a lie defeats the purpose of life - that is to glorify the God of truth.

Paul was the founder of Christianity not Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ did not come to found or promote a religion, He came to testify to the truth. Paul lied to promote Christianity (by his own words). Therefore, Christianity and it's proponents that follow Paul are promoting something that IS NOT of Jesus Christ because what they are promoting is based in and on lies.

That is why I call myself a Follower of Jesus Christ and not a Christian.

Jer 8:8
" How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made {it} into a lie.

Zep 3:13
"The remnant of Israel will do no wrong And tell no lies, Nor will a deceitful tongue Be found in their mouths; For they will feed and lie down With no one to make them tremble."

1Jo 2:21
I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

Re 14:5
And no lie was found in their mouth; they are blameless.

God makes it perfectly clear; no lie is justifiable no matter what the case may be. The religious leaders, at the time when the Son of God was on earth, were liars and this made them all the more determined to kill their Messiah. The religious leaders felt vindicated by their authority and determined to shut His mouth, because He was exposing their charade. The evidence would indicate that these leaders knew Jesus was the Son of God, they also knew that their power would be gone if they endorsed Him.

Joh 8:44
"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Joh 10:26,27
"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

Those who follow the Son of God recognize and accept the truth.

Religious leaders have lied from the very beginnings of religion, it is the evil ones way of camouflaging the truth. When people determine to discover the truth, they will find themselves all but alone, except for the company of the Spirit of Truth. The Spirit of Truth will give to the dedicated seeker of truth the ability to recognize and understand the truth. We cannot just accept anyone’s word who claims to have the truth or special revelations from God, we must test everything against the words of God, not the words of those who masquerade as God's messengers.

Matthew 24:4,5 And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you. "For many will come in My name, saying, `I am the Christ,' and will mislead many.

What I think is important to note is that these same liars were very influential in what eventually made up the Bible and how we interpret it. Particularly St. Jerome and St. Augustine. Both Jerome and Augustine were obsessed with sexual purity and Jerome ended his days living in a cave with a mother and daughter whom he would not allow to bathe or comb their hair after convincing the other daughter/sister to deny her physical self to the point where she starved to death.

Both openly admit that they excluded texts that did not meet what THEY believed to be standards of orthodoxy. There was no consideration of truthfulness in the way we determine what is true today. The standard of truth was not by observation and reason, but by the authority of men.

Amen! Of course I agree with you 100%, Wayfinder. The most difficult thing there is to do in the world is to not tell a lie when telling the truth will get you killed.

I am continually amazed at how many people who say they are Christian will take the expedient way to achieve their goals, even seemingly noble ones, rather than taking the way of truth and honor. The way of truth and honor requires a commitment to self honesty that not just 'will not be shaken' but 'cannot be shaken' by the temptation to manipulate what you believe to be true to achieve your personal goals.

Paul said he would become anything to anyone as long as they would come to the Lord. He said he would lie if by his lie others were 'saved'. Think about this for a minute; If you lie to someone to get them to make what you think is the correct decision for them are you not inhibiting them from making an informed decision on their own? If they have not made this decision with the correct and complete information because of your lie and they make the wrong one are you not then responsible for that incorrect decision?

What Paul has essentially said is that he doesn't trust you to make your own decisions so he will make them for you, and that if you are smart you will let him do this. Does this sound like someone that has your best interest at heart? Why would you trust someone as manipulative as this with your salvation?

cardw,

So did Rahab, the prostitute :). I don't think that God commends such acts, but He does work around these. To assume that Christian religious view about Christ is thus distorted would be a slippery slope assumption, don't you think?

I think it's safe to assume that your parents lied to you at some point of your development... does it automatically undercut your trust in their ability as parents? I doubt that. We find it natural to twist things our way, so I don't find it "shocking" that even apostles could lie about certain things... but my belief is (no matter how unsubstantiated you find it) that these things did not make it into the canon of 66. There were plenty of writings that were left out specifically for that reason.

First of all, don't do the selective editing :)

"What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some did not have faith? Will there lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: 'So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.'

But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? that God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, 'If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increase his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?' Why not say -- as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim we say -- 'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is deserved." (Romans 3:1-8)


Do you see any thought promoting to "lie for the Lord"? The other verses that you are referring to (becoming anything for anyone) are communication related... and not about "pretense and manipulation". I am a native Russian speaker, and I'm becoming an English speaker so you can understand it. Does it make me a liar or manipulator ? :)

Its no longer a slippery slope. Its based in fact. We now have a much larger picture of the beliefs of the first century. Christianity did not emerge from a single source. What we have is the Roman and Greek philosophical story telling machine generating hundreds of different gospels. The ones that made it into the Bible are no more based on history than any others. We have simply been taught that they are.

These books are only there in the Bible because the one's who held the power determined the story. And it was the Roman/Pauline tradition that won the political war and the war of violence.

To dismiss the admission of using lies to spread the "gospel" is simply one more evidence of denial. We don't allow that in other pursuits of truth, but we make an exception when it comes to Christianity because we have pre determined that its "true."

Literal belief in Christianity can only be sustained by selective examination of evidence and the generous use of triumphalism. I understand why this happens and its generally not a conscious malicious intent, but it is dishonest just the same.



Jerome's influence can be seen in how the following statement of Jesus is interpreted.

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed ADULTERY with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into HELL."

Now its a natural biological process for the male of every mammalian species to be attracted to females. It doesn't matter if its your wife or not. It happens period. Its the same process that happens when you are hungry. Your body lets you know. That's why that part of our neural system is called the feed and breed system.

Now if its a sin to have a biological reaction, then that would explain the neurosis that both Jerome and Augustine had around sexuality. That would explain why, today, often the most religious are the most sexually dysfunctional.

If you search the web you will find all kinds of sermons that take the first part of Jesus' statement literally, but you won't find too many advocating men to gouge their right eye out.

Now in the early Christian church self castration was performed based on the theology around this text. Its not too hard to see how that might be extracted from this text. The church father Origin was admired for his practice of this.

Now its possible that this passage was either translated to emphasize the evilness of sexuality or that it was added or its entirely possible that Jesus was exaggerating to make a point through humor.

He may have thought it was so outrageous that no one would possibly take this literally.

This idea is further promoted by Jesus in this passage from Matthew.

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

In some circles girding your loins was interpreted as castration.

As you can see, there is no end to shame around sexuality. To me it is quite apparent that these were included because very influential theologians wanted to promote celibate priesthoods.

You can't separate these from the text of the Bible. What you are doing, like I mentioned before, is simply practicing triumphal announcement to avoid the facts.

Yet, you do exactly the same :). You pick the parts that you have problems with to invalidate the rest (at least in your mind).

You are taking writings of 2000 years ago and interpreting these as "barbaric"... specifically the strong poetic language and similes of these times.

Yes, the passage talks about castration. NO! The passage does not encourage castration. Neither the other passage encourage self-mutilation. When I say "Land me your ears"... I don't literally mean for you to cut these off and give these to me. There are specific idioms and strong language can be used to drive a point home.

In our culture, when people say "go f**k yourself", the expression serves as a strong language to get a strong point across that otherwise would not convey the same level of urgency and tension. I don't think that anyone expects you to go and perform the service of self gratification... They just want you to leave. Forgive me, but this is the simplest example I could find.

I do agree that sex is a taboo in Christian churches and is avoided by any means necessary. Yet, again, it does not mean that it was indented to be such. There are some Biblical writers who embraced sex (Song of songs), and there are some Biblical writers who lived a life of POST CONVERSION abnegation. Yet, even Paul encouraged marital sexual intercourse... and instructed it to NOT be a matter of prohibition.

As far as your position on "natural lust, or should I say libido?" and Biblical condemnation of it... I don't think that Bible condemns sexual attraction. I think that problem comes with you mistaking "lust" for "sexual attraction". It's one thing to find a woman sexually desirable and beautiful. It's another thing to lust.

The context is committing adultery in your mind... Would you find it an pealing thought about someone fantasizing having sex with your wife? What about your daughter or sister... not because they are interested in the person, but because they are interested in using them as a human gratification object.

That's the point of condemning lust. It's the ever reaching implications which are discouraged by most societies on Earth today. You don't have to be a Christian to understand the concept, although I would argue it to be historically God's universal programming... not something that we decided along the way as a human race (which I don't see how it can be possible to carry similar moral standings over large isolated geographic areas)