Lying For Jesus Award

For future reference, the word should be "moot"."Mute" means silent, not uttering a sound. They're also pronounced differently:
"moot" like "root"
"mute" has a palatal glide before the "u" sound, like "myute"
Sorry, my language training makes it impossible for my to figure out a purely English-centric phonetic rendering. Actually, the issue is not that a Christian is not perfect. Rather, it is that they actively use lying and deceiving as a way to serve their god, AKA "The God of Truth". The question then becomes one of whether they are exploiting the situation (ie, using Christianity as an excuse to do wrong; you know, the ends justifying the means, which the Religious Right called "secular humanism"), or the system (the teachings and practices of either fundamentalism or "creation science" or both) actually teaches them to resort to lying and deceiving. If it's the latter case, then the question becomes one of whether they feel that they have scriptural or doctrinal justification (in which case, just what is that justification?), or the community has found that they really do have nothing to support their position so resorting to lying and deceiving is a practical necessity. In the latter case, most of the foot soldiers would be ignorant of the truth and so not realize that they are lying and deceiving -- when confronted by the truth, it seems that they would either go into denial (I've mainly seen this group), decide to continue using the lies (I've seen a few of these on forums; when they can no longer avoid the truth, they admit that they're wrong, but then several days later we find them repeating those very same lies to somebody else and when we confront them about it they run away), or they lose their faith (I've seen several of these, ex-creationists and ex-Christians who lost their faith because of "creation science").My understanding is that "lying for the Lord" is contrary to Christian doctrine. Of course, I could be mistaken, so I would welcome someone showing my that it is condoned and how it is justified. Yeah, seems that it takes a lot to shock anybody anymore.However, I am not a Christian. I stopped being a Christian about 40 years ago when, out of navité, I assumed that my church required nave biblical literalism; upon reading the Bible from the start (I only got through part of Genesis, undoubtedly not to the story of Lot being raped by his daughters, since I would have remembered that) I quickly found that I could not literally believe it, so I left. Everything I've seen and heard and read since then has informed me that I had made the right decision, just for the wrong reasons. If others are also going to make that same decision, I would prefer that it be for the right reasons, which is one of the reasons why I oppose "creation science".I will also undoubtedly never become a Christian. The reason is because of the fruits of Christianity, which include the use of lies and deception by "creation science". It's not disappointment with individual Christians, but rather the pattern I see which tells me that the theology they're being taught promotes their misconduct. Truth, truthfulness, and morality are important to me. Why would I ever want to convert to a faith whose practice opposes truth, truthfulness, and morality?

No, Christianity cannot possibly be the source of truth, truthfulness, and morality. The Bible proves it. Christianity fails the Matthew 7:20 test:

quote:

---

7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes
of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a
corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can]
a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn
down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

---

Christianity is observed to promote and teach the practice of "lying for the Lord".
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit (Matt 7:18)
Therefore, Christianity is a corrupt tree.
QEDThese verses are supposed to be Jesus telling us how to spot the false prophets, by their fruits.In 7:19, Jesus instructs his followers what needs to be be done with corrupt trees. If you are a follower of Jesus and of his teachings, then you need to turn to, mister.Now, it could be argued that it is not Christianity itself that is the corrupt tree, but rather the false teachings of "creation science". Yet again, Matt 7:19 directs real Christians what they need to do, yet Christianity instead shelters and promotes those false teachings. So again by Christianity's fruits, we know it to be false. Of course I didn't; that is exactly what I told you. Why are you claiming that I had said something other than what I did?At around age 11, I came to the conclusion that the Bible was contrary to fact, but the manner in which I had come to that conclusion was flawed. Since then, I have seen nothing to recommend Christianity and the contrary-to-fact claims of "creation science", along with the blatant lying and deceiving that accompany it, reinforce the conclusion that Christianity is the wrong choice. Ah, the old "if you deny God then morality no longer applies and you can do whatever you want" claim. Sorry, that is a false teaching regarding morality. It also misguides Christian teens and young adults with bubbling hormones to "become atheists" so that they can give those hormones free reign. Case in point is a local "creation science" activist, Bill Morgan, who falsely claims to have been an atheist -- he admits that during that period he prayed to God every night, something that an atheist would not do. He describes his "deconversion" as the classic case of using his beliefs that evolution disproves God (which it does not) as his excuse to deny the existence of God so that he could sin away happily and carefree. He was only deluding himself (and now his audiences), as have many others.I had already left because I honestly could not see how I could believe the incredible stuff I was reading in the Bible. If I could not believe what I was supposed to believe as a Christian, then it would not be right to remain. I had learned my morality growing up, not as a package belonging to the church, so when I left I took my morality with me and continued to apply it. Case in point: throughout high school and into college I was just as sex-obscessed as any other guy. In college, on two separate occassions two different married women made sexual advances to me, women to whom I likewise felt very attracted. But because they were married, it would not have been right, so I turned them both down, politely, of course.Now, how does that fit in with your "you wanted to keep your sins"? A Christian atheist, who had left his morality behind as he had been taught by his church, would undoubtedly have jumped right in with hardly a second thought.In other words, Rob, you're projecting.

A "Christian atheist" would be someone whose ideas of religion and of atheism and of what an atheist would be like and do, were taught to him/her by the Christian community. In other words, they hold Christian beliefs about religion and atheism and, in this particular case, morality. I believe that most Christian atheists were raised as Christians and then deconverted for any of several reasons; eg, betrayal (or the perception thereof) by their religion or religious leaders, discovery that what they were taught is not true (which is one manner in which "creation science" is a very major contributor to the spread of atheism), the Christian teaching that if certain things are found to be true or not true then your only choice is to become an atheist, adolescents employing the "no God, no responsibilities; do whatever you want" loophole that they'd been raised on, they just outgrew Christianity and moved on. Many from the first three reasons tend to produce "angry atheists" who fighting back at the religion that had lied to them or betrayed them. Those of the fourth group tend to be too busy lost in hedonism to think much about religion. The fifth group tends to be better adjusted and not as beligerent towards Christianity. The first four groups would tend to still hold the Christian beliefs they had been raised on, while the last group would be much more likely to change their beliefs or to take a more mature view of their former beliefs. BTW, many of the atheists' testimonials that I have seen and heard cite the first two reasons.To the point I was making, the first four groups would tend to hold the Christian view of morality, one which ties morality directly to God and which teaches that it has no purpose nor even any existence without God. The fifth group instead would reject such a belief and take a view of morality that is independent of belief in the supernatural. A Christian atheist would be very likely to follow the Christian teaching requiring him to leave morality behind when he left. Hence the situation I described, in which a Christian atheist would be much more likely to take advantage of the situation, especially an opportunistic fourth-group sham-atheist.Of course, there are also the ex-Christians who leave because they convert to a different belief system. But then they are not atheists, are they? Except maybe the Buddhists. But then there's the Christian attitude that names any non-Christian an "atheist", by some kind of definition that makes anyone not believing in the Christian idea of God as being an atheist, even if they are theists (they just believe in the wrong god).

The problem with your argument is that you completely ignore the Matthew 7:20 test:

quote:

---

7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes
of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a
corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can]
a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn
down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

---

If they were just individuals acting individually on the basis of individual ideas, then you might have a leg to stand on. But in this case, they are acting on what their religion has taught them in a manner that their religion has taught them to use, which is to repeat the false claims that their religion has taught them and employing deceptive tactics that their religion has taught them to use. What they have become and what they do is a direct result of their Christian training.Thus, the actions of these Christians do indeed represent Christianity, as they are the fruits produced by that tree. And by its fruits, we do know that tree of Christianity to be "a corrupt tree" (Matt 7:19).Now I don't know whether you believe that what Matthew says were the words of Jesus, but if you do then why would you insist on denying what Jesus clearly told you?And those non-Christians who judge against Christianity based on the fervent actions of its followers are likewise seeing those followers' actions to be the result of converting to Christianity. And when they see the resultant contrary-to-fact beliefs those people have been taught to hold and the immoral conduct that those people have been taught to engage in (ie, lying and deceiving in support of their god), then they can only conclude that they are seeing what Christianity does to people and hence they would not want to have anything to do with that religion.I would recommend an essay written by physist and practicing Christian Dr. Allan H. Harvey, "Science and Christian Apologetics", at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/apologetics.html, in which he discusses these problems (though without invoking the Matt 7:20 test); short exerpt:

quote:

---

[Scientist colleague] Albert knew that the claims of so-called "creation science" about the Earth being only 6000 years old and so forth were ridiculous, like saying the Earth was flat. Can't blame him for not wanting to be associated with that nonsense. But what's worse is that that was the first thing that came to Albert's mind about Christianity. Not the death and resurrection of Jesus. Not even the Golden Rule or the Ten Commandments. The anti-science noise had drowned out the Gospel so all Albert had heard was a false Gospel, one that was centered in a particular interpretation of Genesis rather than being centered in Christ. [Gal. 1:6-9]

---

This is a very real problem for Christianity. So why do Christians insist on hiding their heads in the sand? That fellow Christians refuse to take their brethern to task for lying and deceiving also sends a message.

We're not talking about individuals. We're talking about entire churches. Entire denominations.And we're not talking about preconceived notions, but rather the daily witnessing of persistent and determined misconduct as taught to them by their churches. Those individuals are not deciding on their own to lie and deceive, but rather they are taught to do so by their churches.What part of that do you not understand?Now, I do indeed believe that what those churches teach is contrary to Christian doctrine. I do believe that they are teaching false theology which is based on the false theology of "creation science" and of biblical literalism.And I do make an effort to not pre-judge any individual Christian. I leave that to that individual. Many Christians are decent individuals who truly try to do right and to serve Truth. But far too many prove to be incorrigable liars consumed by the false theology they are being taught. But I leave it up to them to demonstrate which they are.In the meantime, I have seen the fruits produced by those churches. According to Matthew 7:19, Jesus tells us what to do with those churches:

quote:

---

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn
down, and cast into the fire.

---

And yet no "follower of Christ" will actually follow Christ and do as he commanded.