Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Which question?
The OP.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which question?
Atheism isn't naturalism, though. A person can believe in a spirit world and still be an atheist.
I don't want anybody to buy a new car/vehicle...I just want them to know the speed, comfort, reliability of a 2015 ________ .
First, it is not a lie that a new car may be superior in speed, comfort, and reliability and secondly no one must buy Jesus...
...Freely you have received, freely give. Matthew 10:18
I'm just giving you a playful hard-time for using the infamous "I don't want to sell people on a religion...just share how wonderful, saving, etc. a relationship with Jesus is."
It's a frequently used promotional/marketing tactic taught in business degree curriculum and apologetics, in various forms.
Originally Posted by Mormon ThinkMy participation in another thread reminded me about something that I had experienced in the past that might warrant discussion, that is the concept of "Lying for the Lord."
The site "Mormon Think" spells out the issue well:
A List of Prevarications by Church Leaders is available at the web site "Mormon Think" that is linked at the top of this post.
I've read articles about ALL of the religions of Abraham using this lie clause.
*
(continued)I don't doubt that, but where I've run across it is in Mormon.
I'm not sure where to start on this. I'm not going to take the time to respond to every accusation of lies ever made. But, here are some thoughts:
1. If you think Joseph Smith lied about his basic revelations, game over. If he thought it was OK to lie that the Father, the Son, Moroni, John the Baptist, Elijah, Moses, Peter, James, and John appeared to him, then it follows that he would lie about anything to suit his needs. it would follow that his closest followers were either stupid or also liars. It then follows that this tradition carried down through history. So unless I can convince you that JS told the truth about his main revelations, then I can't possibly convince you of the integrity of the church generally. And I really doubt that I can convince you of the divine calling of Joseph Smith.
2. There are some cases where a lie would be justified. The example of Abraham was used. Suppose I were walking along with my daughter and some gang bangers stopped us and said, "dude, if that's your daughter, I'm going to blow her brains out." I would have no problem whatsoever telling them that she is not my daughter and so save her life. I don't think God would be displeased with me for my dishonesty in this case. The virtue of total honesty has it's limits in extreme circumstances.
3. I've been in my church my whole life. I've lived in a lot of places in the U.S., had many, many leaders, served in some leadership myself, and I think I know the culture of honesty. I can say with complete confidence that integrity is a virtue generally possessed and cherished by church members, including leaders. In fact I would say that the integrity of church leaders today is evidence of the integrity of early church leaders, as the tradition was passed down. The church has generally attracted persons of honesty both in the past and today.
4. Church leaders and members are not perfect. Dishonesty happens. I certainly prefer to see it exposed for what it is, when it does occur.
Sapiens, are you a former member of the LDS church? I cannot understand the depth that you go through to find anything you can against the LDS church. You went to another anti-Mormon website and quote all former LDS members. Do you always go to another church or persons enemies to find out what amounts to a bunch of garbage?
The only thing I would like to respond to is Abraham.
Genesis 12:10–20.
Abraham could validly state that Sarah was his sister. In the Bible the Hebrew words brother and sister are often used for other blood relatives. (See Genesis 14:14, in which Lot, Abraham’s nephew, is called “his brother.” Because Abraham and Haran, Sarah’s father, were brothers, Sarah was Abraham’s niece and thus could be called sister. Another ancient custom that might shed light on the relationship permitted a woman to be adopted as a man’s sister upon their marriage to give her greater legal and social status (see Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Sarah,” 14:866).
No I am not, I am a life long atheist descended from a long line of life long atheists. I have, however, lived and worked in Salt Lake, I go far enough back to still have my membership cards for the Wasatch Front and the New Yorker.
That is, as they say, your problem. Is understanding rather common things a typical problem for you?
Why yes,can you think of a better way? If I want to know what's wrong with the Democrats, I go ask a died in the wool Republican. listen carefully, and then throw away most all of the moldy crappy complaints and stick to the real ones. Same thing here. We could be reviewing Thomas Lewis' Castration, Mrs. T. B. H. Stenhouse's Autobiography, Baskin's, "Reminiscences of Early Utah," Bill Hickman (in general), the Mountain Meadows massacre or any number of other low hanging fruit (trust me, there is whole truckload)... but that's not my style.
Please, don't feel left out. I'll get around to doing the same for the Baptists, the Catholics, in fact most any Christian sect, to a lesser degrees the Jews (they're a bit harder) and even the Muslims (but they really don't need my help). I tend to leave the eastern religions alone, because (like the Jews) they don't create a lot of opportunities with a bunch of foolish rot.
Yes Skwim, I am in my own little world. Don't try and crack my nutshell.
Granted, but not common. I've never heard many atheists declare a spiritual world exists. I'd like to hear what they think though.
Atheism isn't naturalism, though. A person can believe in a spirit world and still be an atheist.
This is a trick question. What about all the people who don't tell the 'whole' truth? I think this is what Quint meant. It may not be lying but it is a bit shady imo.
I do perceive alternate realities that some might define as being spiritual, but it has never occurred to me to describe them as such. I wouldn't want to give folks who believe in "spiritual worlds" the feeling that their vision is accurate by describing them in that way. They're far different from anything I've ever read about, that is for sure. Let's leave it at that.Granted, but not common. I've never heard many atheists declare a spiritual world exists. I'd like to hear what they think though.
Given that I do not follow a religion or feel a need for one in this life, obviously I'd have to say no. In larger terms though, if you asked if I would lie into order to support my descriptions of Non-Dual reality, I'd still say no, but I'd quickly point out that non-dual reality does not easily lend itself to verbal terms, so in many ways anything you say or attempt to explain about non-dual reality is a bit of a fib because our normal symbol library does not include suitable terms. In my view, using terms like "Absolute" or "Ultimate" reality are outright lies as there is no possible way to ascertain the veracity of the claims... even while within the non-dual environs.Would you tell a lie in support of your religion?
I don't accept converts, students or followers. Folks can row their own damned boats. My answer would be no. I am happy to say that the religion of Ymir has not had any apostates as a result of the previous statement.Would you fabricate evidence, make up a story, or pass along a story that you knew was false if you felt that doing so would increase the chances of getting someone to convert to your religion (or to keep someone from leaving it?).
If it was simply for promotion, then no, that is never acceptable. If it is like a Jew in Nazi Germany lying to save their lives, that's another thing entirely and is understandable. Though many human animals love their gods with all their might, not too many are in a hurry to meet said gods.If not you, then would you feel that someone else telling a lie for the sake of your religion would be justified at all?
For example, if a person hoaxed a miracle and said their God did it and you happen to worship that same God, would you consider that a justifiable hoax if such an action won converts? Do you know anyone who would consider such a thing acceptable?
I guess it is indeed rare for people to fully believe in a spiritual world without also accepting the reality of some conception of deity.
That is IMO simply because "deity" is such a vague and overused concept.
Can you give me an example? The OP seems quite clear, blunt even, to me. It asks pretty directly whether people find lying "for the good of the faith" morally defensable.
To be more specific, I'm focusing on "fabricating things that never happened" as opposed to "hiding things that did/do happen".But what, precisely, constitutes lying? That isn't so straightforward.
If a member of any religion doesn't mention the abuses of a tiny minority of their fellow members or leadership, is that lying? Because every group has them. If I fail to mention that there are a few creepers out there in Neopaganism who associate with the movement because they want to get in people's pants, am I lying "for the good of the religion?"
If a member of any religion doesn't point out the various drawbacks of being an adherent, is that lying? Because every group has those too. If I fail to mention that the Neopagan "community" lacks some of the significant benefits of organized religion like infrastructure, paid clergy, and support groups, am I lying "for the good of the religion?"
If a member of any religion focuses on painting a positive portrait so that others don't regard them with hatred and ire, is that lying too? Is public relations on the whole a form of deception and lying?
Of course.
Would you tell a lie in support of your religion? Would you fabricate evidence, make up a story, or pass along a story that you knew was false if you felt that doing so would increase the chances of getting someone to convert to your religion (or to keep someone from leaving it?).
How would I know if they "hoaxed" a miracle? Why would they tell me? A person tells me something, the truth of it is between them and their consciousness. What others consider acceptable morals is often a surprise to me so I don't doubt someone I know would consider this an acceptable action.If not you, then would you feel that someone else telling a lie for the sake of your religion would be justified at all? For example, if a person hoaxed a miracle and said their God did it and you happen to worship that same God, would you consider that a justifiable hoax if such an action won converts? Do you know anyone who would consider such a thing acceptable?
I believe most seekers of religion are after the truth. But begin to lie when they believe they have found the truth and the truth is God because then they make God bigger than the truth.
Gareth would lie for anything... :run: