Why is it okay for missionaries to lie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

After reading "maybe he was", I can't be bothered anymore.

---

A closed mind is a little-used one.

hore tores inability to accept certain facts, i.e. the possibility of an omnipotent God or even to allow it to be a used base for any sort of argument makes this entire argument moot and a waste of time.

The problem with religion is that every time a religious text was written, The Man would step in and edit the hell out of it. How omnipotent is a god if The Man can thwart him? The Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Dienetics, 101 Tastey Spaghetti Recipes, and Buddhas Big Book of Happy... all of these I am sure were much better, with more tits and more liquor, before The Man came in with his scissors and giant eraser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

The problem with religion is that every time a religious text was written, The Man would step in and edit the hell out of it. How omnipotent is a god if The Man can thwart him? The Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Dienetics, 101 Tastey Spaghetti Recipes, and Buddhas Big Book of Happy... all of these I am sure were much better, with more tits and more liquor, before The Man came in with his scissors and giant eraser.

---

The Book of Mormon was only edited to fix grammatical mistakes (I've looked at a reproduction of the first edition of the Book of Mormon and it had some Huckleberry Finn speech in it). At any rate the church publishing company has put out reproductions of the original Book of Mormon so it's not like they're worried about people making comparisons. Just sayin'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

hore tores inability to accept certain facts, i.e. the possibility of an omnipotent God or even to allow it to be a used base for any sort of argument makes this entire argument moot and a waste of time.

---

Meh, last time someone got resurrected, he was God (in a way). So it's either more or less a lie or the second greatest thing ever happening in Christianity. If people doesn't treat it as the later, they suspect it's the former.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

The Book of Mormon was only edited to fix grammatical mistakes (I've looked at a reproduction of the first edition of the Book of Mormon and it had some Huckleberry Finn speech in it). At any rate the church publishing company has put out reproductions of the original Book of Mormon so it's not like they're worried about people making comparisons. Just sayin'.

---

The Book of Mormon treats chunks of King James bible as original canon. Ergo, the first correct version according to Mormons, is considered a poor translation written about 1600 years after the fact, by the rest of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Meh, last time someone got resurrected, he was God (in a way). So it's either more or less a lie or the second greatest thing ever happening in Christianity. If people doesn't treat it as the later, they suspect it's the former.

---

Christ is neither the first nor the last reported instance of razing from the dead. That doesn't make this story true, but it should place it within context. According to Christian theology you are supposed to be able to raise someone from the dead with sufficient faith.

Now, as has been noted, HoreTore refuses to accept the existence of any form of God, that's fine. what isn't fine is that he refuses to accept that anyone else accepts that.

Ergo, he assumes every "religious" person is practicing congnative dissonance in claiming to believe in God.

HoreTore, we aren't and the continued insinuation is irritating.

I think you should stop trying to figure out what other people may or may not insinuate, you aren't very good at it.

I do not believe that there is anything wrong with religious people at all. I do not in any way understand why a religious person believes, but I accept that they do withiut there being any negative aspects making them do so.


However.

Believing a bogus story about someone raised from the dead in a random village deep in Africa is something quite different than that. I'd rate it at the same level as Blavatsky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Christ is neither the first nor the last reported instance of razing from the dead. That doesn't make this story true, but it should place it within context. According to Christian theology you are supposed to be able to raise someone from the dead with sufficient faith.

Now, as has been noted, HoreTore refuses to accept the existence of any form of God, that's fine. what isn't fine is that he refuses to accept that anyone else accepts that.

Ergo, he assumes every "religious" person is practicing congnative dissonance in claiming to believe in God.

HoreTore, we aren't and the continued insinuation is irritating.

---

I am with the viking here, dispite him being very selective in his contempt for religion. I would probably be your perfect neighbour as long as you don't bring it up, live and let live thingie. Atheists are probably more intrusive nowadays than the religious, that much is probably true and it has a sadistic touch, but it is also kinda new. Something you should just deal with for the moment imho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I am with the viking here, dispite him being very selective in his contempt for religion.

---

My feelings towards christians, muslims, buddhists, etc are all the same.

I do reserve a different treatment for those who cross the border into coocoo-land though, like Blavatksy, ariosophy or missionaries who say they raise the dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

My feelings towards christians, muslims, buddhists, etc are all the same.

---

Oh really, I'll just take your word for it. I can absolutely say they are for me, but I am less sure about you. Hope you don't mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I think you should stop trying to figure out what other people may or may not insinuate, you aren't very good at it.

I do not believe that there is anything wrong with religious people at all. I do not in any way understand why a religious person believes, but I accept that they do withiut there being any negative aspects making them do so.

---

I don't know, other seem to think I'm fairly good at reading people. Take another look at the topic you started - the one that assumes everyone repeating the story in the OP is either stupid or dishonest.

Hell, take a look at the question - the answer to which you have repeatedly been told "it isn't" and yet keep asking.

Quote:

---

However.

Believing a bogus story about someone raised from the dead in a random village deep in Africa is something quite different than that. I'd rate it at the same level as Blavatsky.

---

What makes the story bogus?

I mean, what about the story other than someone being raised from the dead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

The Book of Mormon was only edited to fix grammatical mistakes (I've looked at a reproduction of the first edition of the Book of Mormon and it had some Huckleberry Finn speech in it). At any rate the church publishing company has put out reproductions of the original Book of Mormon so it's not like they're worried about people making comparisons. Just sayin'.

---

May I borrow some underwear?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I don't know, other seem to think I'm fairly good at reading people. Take another look at the topic you started - the one that assumes everyone repeating the story in the OP is either stupid or dishonest.

---

I started the topic because I can't seem to figure out why they do it and how they justify their actions. The story is obviously fake, but that does not imply either stupidity or dishonesty, though they certainly seem to be strong suggestions. Other explanations can be hope(in that they really, really want it to be true) or social pressure, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Hell, take a look at the question - the answer to which you have repeatedly been told "it isn't" and yet keep asking.

---

If the answer to "why is it okay to spread lies" is "it isn't", then we simply wouldn't see missionaries spread obvious lies. Yet they do it, so there must be some other answer. Note that your personal opinion isn't what I'm trying to figure out, I'm trying to figure out the opinions of the missionaries who spread the lies. I have no reason to believe you're one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

What makes the story bogus?

I mean, what about the story other than someone being raised from the dead?

---

Well, let me see.... Oh, yeah, they claim they raised someone from the dead. That's a start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Meh, last time someone got resurrected, he was God (in a way). So it's either more or less a lie or the second greatest thing ever happening in Christianity. If people doesn't treat it as the later, they suspect it's the former.



The Book of Mormon treats chunks of King James bible as original canon. Ergo, the first correct version according to Mormons, is considered a poor translation written about 1600 years after the fact, by the rest of the world.

---

The parts of the Old Testament that are in the Book of Mormon are said by the narrative to have been copied from scriptures the characters of the book took with them, and they don't follow the King James version word for word. As for the King James bible, it's considered to be a good enough translation, not a correct one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

May I borrow some underwear?

---

Sure. Do you like Hanes brand underwear? Because that's what I wear. And I hope you don't mind racing stripes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Well, let me see.... Oh, yeah, they claim they raised someone from the dead. That's a start.

---

See - Christians are willing to believe that because we believe in an omnipotent God.

Why can't you just accept that and move on with your life?


You're either practicing deliberate hard headedness or you are just looking for "bad" religious people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

See - Christians are willing to believe that because we believe in an omnipotent God.

Why can't you just accept that and move on with your life?


You're either practicing deliberate hard headedness or you are just looking for "bad" religious people.

---

As I have already said, there are plenty of other reasons it's an obvious lie as well. I'll repeat two of them:

1. If it was true, the story would've been spread far harder, instead of being tucked away in small websites and organizational newsletters.
2. Other than their own testimony, there is nothing else supporting it. One witness account count for absolutely nothig when it comes to determine what is true.

And it's not like the majority of christians believe that god raises random people from the dead deep in Africa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

See - Christians are willing to believe that because we believe in an omnipotent God.

Why can't you just accept that and move on with your life?


You're either practicing deliberate hard headedness or you are just looking for "bad" religious people.

---

All fine if you accept that we we don't, there is no special treatment for you so don't ask for any

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

As I have already said, there are plenty of other reasons it's an obvious lie as well. I'll repeat two of them:

1. If it was true, the story would've been spread far harder, instead of being tucked away in small websites and organizational newsletters.
2. Other than their own testimony, there is nothing else supporting it. One witness account count for absolutely nothig when it comes to determine what is true.

And it's not like the majority of christians believe that god raises random people from the dead deep in Africa.

---

1. Your own reaction gives the answer to this. Maybe they tried to publicise it and nobody listened, maybe they thought it wasn't being laughed at again.

2. And? That doesn't prove anything, other than the fact that there's only one missionary in an impoverished village.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

All fine if you accept that we we don't, there is no special treatment for you so don't ask for any

---

I don't ask for special treatment - I do ask that people not question whether my beliefs are sincerely held or not. Like the time someone on this board diagnosed my religion as essentially baggage from a bad relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

1. Your own reaction gives the answer to this. Maybe they tried to publicise it and nobody listened, maybe they thought it wasn't being laughed at again.

---

So.... Not being laughed at is worse than not doing what your god has commanded you to(convert the masses)? I find it extremely hard to believe that someone who has pledged his life to spread the word of his god turns down an opportunity to convert thousands because there's a chance "he might get laughed at". No, there's zero logic in this. If that biy was raised from the dead, he would've spent the next years as a missionary poster boy, paraded around to spread the faith. No, this is an obviously fake story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

2. And? That doesn't prove anything, other than the fact that there's only one missionary in an impoverished village.

---

You're getting what needs to be proved all backwards. The one who is making the claim of course has the burden of proof. As there is nothing at all which suggest that this story is true, one must assume that it is false. If I claim that Hitler was an alien, I can't tell the ones who oppose my claim that they have to prove me wrong - I am of course the one who has to prove that Hitler was an alien.

I'm getting the feeling that you have thrown away your ability to think critically because you want to believe. Believing that your god can raise people from the dead and believing this particular story are two very different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I don't ask for special treatment - I do ask that people not question whether my beliefs are sincerely held or not. Like the time someone on this board diagnosed my religion as essentially baggage from a bad relationship.

---

Then may I suggest that you do the same yourself, and stop accusing those who do not believe what you believe of not having an open mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So.... Not being laughed at is worse than not doing what your god has commanded you to(convert the masses)? I find it extremely hard to believe that someone who has pledged his life to spread the word of his god turns down an opportunity to convert thousands because there's a chance "he might get laughed at". No, there's zero logic in this. If that biy was raised from the dead, he would've spent the next years as a missionary poster boy, paraded around to spread the faith. No, this is an obviously fake story.

---

Sorry? OK - you get a WTF for this one.

A child? You expect a Christian missionary to parade a miracle child around? I wouldn't. Let's assume, for a second, that I was a missionary priest and this happened to me: I would leave the child to get on with his life adn write a letter detailing the events to my Diosean. I certainly wouldn't take a child away from his home village and use him as some kind of "proof" of a miracle. He would be no such thing anyway, people would just see a living child.

Anyone who has looked at religion sees that most people believe what they want to believe, the Gospel itself records that Christ said that people will believe when they see a miracle, and then try to explain it away later and forget about it. So what benefit would traumatising a small child do?

Your assumption is that the individual missionary is corrupt, hence why you believe he fabricated the story, and that is colouring your whole interpretation of the sequence of events.

God's commandment was "Love your God" and then "love your neighbour" not "get bums on pews".

As to not contacting major news outlets, I see you ignored my point that most of them wouldn't pick it - beyond that it does not behove the missionary to contact international media, he may have neither the means nor the inclination, or he may not consider it a worthwhile use of his time.

Quote:

---

You're getting what needs to be proved all backwards. The one who is making the claim of course has the burden of proof. As there is nothing at all which suggest that this story is true, one must assume that it is false. If I claim that Hitler was an alien, I can't tell the ones who oppose my claim that they have to prove me wrong - I am of course the one who has to prove that Hitler was an alien.

I'm getting the feeling that you have thrown away your ability to think critically because you want to believe. Believing that your god can raise people from the dead and believing this particular story are two very different things.

---

I already told you what I believed about this story, that the events happened but the missionary interpreted the boy's recovery as a miracle when in fact he was not dead. Of course, he may never actually have been dead in the missionary's eyes - we don't know that the letter wasn't written in another language and then mistranslated (perhaps wilfully so).

You are the one not thinking critically - I have already pointed out that just this sort of thing used to happen in Europe, which is why you had an open casket Vigil.

Whether or not this boy was raised from the dead is a completely different question to whether the sequence of events reported happened. I am like you sceptical of any claim of miracles, but I see no reason to believe the letter is a falsehood. Sometimes there is only one witness to an event, that does not mean that, "one must assume that it is false" - one must first consider the plausability of the story. The only implausable part is the fact that the boy was ever dead.

Quote:

---

Then may I suggest that you do the same yourself, and stop accusing those who do not believe what you believe of not having an open mind.

---

The equivilent of what I have to put up with would be me telling you you're stupid and deluded because you're an atheist, and that secretly you believe in God but can't admit it even to yourself.

I just say you're closed minded because I think you are, I know plenty of atheists who aren't.

I think that most 'religious' people know, deep down, that it is a fantasy maintained for reasons of social cohesion. It's also nice to think that people once loved can be seen again. However, if people truly believed that their eternal souls were in jeopardy and following a specific set of tenants would save them, they would actually live by those tenants - all day, every day. The phenomenon of the casually religious would not exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I think that most 'religious' people know, deep down, that it is a fantasy maintained for reasons of social cohesion. It's also nice to think that people once loved can be seen again. However, if people truly believed that their eternal souls were in jeopardy and following a specific set of tenants would save them, they would actually live by those tenants - all day, every day. The phenomenon of the casually religious would not exist.

---

This is exactly the crap I'm talking about.

Screw off PJ - not everybody has the same way of viewing the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Depends on your type of faith, honestly. Many christians take the view that man is a flawed creature, and that the bible itself is a flawed product of man, while the exploits and teachings of jesus himself (which makes up a relatively small portion of the bible anyway) suggest that if you're pure of heart and intention god will judge you accordingly. Its not so much about following the specifics as it is trying to 'do what jesus would do,' if you will.

That's not all christians, obviously, but many that you call 'casually' religious are in fact just skeptical of the establishment, but not the message.

---

But that's just it. Even if we eliminate everything from Christianity except the teachings of Jesus, the vast, vast majority of Christians do not even attempt to emulate some of his more inconvenient messages, such as those regarding the accumulation of wealth for example. If Christianity was anything more than a convenient moral code in which to indoctrinate children and maintain social ties, there would be no rich Christians, and none who would try to be rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

But that's just it. Even if we eliminate everything from Christianity except the teachings of Jesus, the vast, vast majority of Christians do not even attempt to emulate some of his more inconvenient messages, such as those regarding the accumulation of wealth for example. If Christianity was anything more than a convenient moral code in which to indoctrinate children and maintain social ties, there would be no rich Christians, and none who would try to be rich.

---

Jesus alos said everybody would fail to be a "good£ person, nevermind Christian, anyway.

We're all epic screwups, any other religion would try to change that - hell Communism basically fails because it tries to make people "behave".

You lack faith, that part of you that feels the sunshine and interprets that as God isn't as significant as the sceptical part of you. That's fine, but not everybody is like that.

I litterally spent years going "I can't hear you" even when I had a pretty good idea what I was hearing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I agree with you, but I don't think I made my point clear. Christianity is such a fractured mixture of different organizations, teachings, and establishments all competing with one another (and with other faiths) that the real message (Be good, be selfless, be humble, etc.) is often lost in the noise.

And even for those who do take it quite seriously, most understand that humans will err, and they will err often. The single largest message in the new testament is that Jesus offers redemption for the mistakes and imperfections of man, so that if you fail to live up to the standard you can repent and try again, so long as you are sincere.

---

Sincerity is certainly the issue. I would suggest that a man who goes to church on Sunday and to work on Monday to enrich himself is not sincere in his Christianity. There is a large difference between erring in the heat of the moment and structuring one's life in a manner that goes against the teachings of your god. Anyone who has an accurate understanding of Jesus' teachings understands that god's forgiveness is not a get out of jail free card. In fact, Christians at large should reject capitalism at its core, but the vast majority do not. Most people are willing to embrace a certain convenient Christianity as it comes with some significant social insurance in many parts of the world, but their actions do not suggest true belief.

It aint just the lutherans who spread these lies, the Catholics do it too. And they get rather pissed when someone calls their bluff....

I'm sure Jesus is proud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This is exactly the crap I'm talking about.

Screw off PJ - not everybody has the same way of viewing the world.

---

He's more or less right. You are a different christian than most, you know that.

Many people do not think about there faith at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

He's more or less right. You are a different christian than most, you know that.

Many people do not think about there faith at all

---

PJ didn't start by criticising individual adherents, he led with a criticism of the basic idea and the belief system that has grown up around that idea.

Hypocracy is an acknowledged problem in Christianity as well as every other religions and all forms of philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So, that brings the missionaries up from "lying cheats" to "ignorant idiots". Assuming, of course, that they have no clue as to what's going on and turn to god to explain what they are too dumb to do(as well as being too dumb to seek help).

Now, I do not have educational statistics on western missionaries, but my impression is that they range from educated to very educated. Not ignorant. And their backers, the ones who read their reports, certainly contain a fair amount of highly educated people, including medical staff. And yet, knowing the truth, they still choose to spread the obvious lies.

Sorry, I'm sticking with "lying cheats" over "ignorant idiots".

---

You can explain your world however you want, freedom of belief applies to you as well, however dogmatic you want to be, it's okay. ~:pat:

Then again you may be a lying cheat sent by the devil, knowing very well that these missionaries fully believe what they say, yet portray them as evil fraudsters. Now that I think about it you couldn't possibly believe in that much human evil, after all you're a teacher and you should know a lot about humanity, so I'm going to stick with "agent of the devil" over "seriously concerned citizen". ~;)

Does "agent of the devil" come with some sort of uniform?

If so, I'm definitely sold!