Why is it okay for missionaries to lie?

[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.

[Tuuvi]

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

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.

[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.