Why is it okay for missionaries to lie?

[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.

[Tuuvi]

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'.

[Ironside]

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[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.


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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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?

[HoreTore]

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.

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.

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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?