Talk:Lying for Jesus
"Lying for Jesus happens quite a bit "[edit]
Since we're oh-so-rational, can someone provide a meaningful quantification of the vague term "quite a bit"? What percentage of statements by Christians are demonstrably false? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 17:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Proxima, What counts as "significantly often"? Is there a level at which the uttering of intentionally deceptive statements becomes significant? If so, what is that level, exactly? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't come across a single Christian site that hasn't lied about something. Every time I found sites that said "Lutheranism" (my denomination before i became Atheist) was a cult, they lied, and claimed that we worship Mary. Bullshit. Of my whole life in the Lutheran Church, and i still go because my family would get upset if they knew I was atheist, we NEVER worshiped Mary. Another example is that they believe in keeping the bible in context. however, they are actually very selective: If a verse fits their views, they keep it in context. If it goes against their views, they put it in context. I've noticed this works vice versa too. A denomination that has the opposite of their views would do the exact same thing: selective context. Historical accuracy is a problem too: Many apologetic books cite sources that seem to be evidence. However one question would nullify that: Why isn't the consensus for academic historians for Christianity? If there is reliable evidence, then historians wouldn't have such a wide variety of faiths.--TemplarJLS (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
,
Matthew 27[edit]
Whoever wrote this section, you do understand the idea of metaphor and poetic and literary licence, right? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- They're just other words for lies. Cause, you know, they're not true. --95.233.43.186 (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- What's it like, living in a world with no poetry, no wordplay, no artistry in language, no metaphor? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rational. --87.5.93.142 (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Tell me, do you ever read literature? And if so, do you ever see how literature can contain messages and meanings that go beyond simply recounting a story? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- It would be a lot more efficient without all the intentional obfuscation of communication. --87.5.93.142 (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Tell me, do you ever read literature? And if so, do you ever see how literature can contain messages and meanings that go beyond simply recounting a story? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rational. --87.5.93.142 (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- What's it like, living in a world with no poetry, no wordplay, no artistry in language, no metaphor? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It would be poor literature if the author simply pointed out: "the river is a symbol for X" and "the message I want you to get from this story is Y" PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed it should simply state "X" and "Y" and be done with it. --87.2.221.130 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- How would you have written Heart of Darkness or Ulysses or Beloved? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not at all. --95.232.101.158 (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- How would you have written Heart of Darkness or Ulysses or Beloved? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion[edit]
I don't think pages like this do us any good. It's really no better than the "atheism and obesity/bestiality/mass murder" nonsense we see at CP etc. Christianity has no special connection with lying any more than any other religion or philosophy does. The few salient points & examples here could be better used in other articles. ωεαşεζøίɗ
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps a section for "On lying" in the pages for those who propone this method (Comfort, et al), with snarky references to "thou shalt not bear false witness"? -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with both of you. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 19:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with the reasonable weasel and the fat measuring cup.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with the reasonable weasel and the fat measuring cup.
- I agree with both of you. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 19:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I object to your objection. I see no reason this should not be kept as an article - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with David. I see lying for Jesus all the time in the real world. Why should we not talk about it? It's one of the things I find most frustrating about **some** Christians. their abject hypocrisy.
GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 22:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with David. I see lying for Jesus all the time in the real world. Why should we not talk about it? It's one of the things I find most frustrating about **some** Christians. their abject hypocrisy.
And that marks 14 days of discussion for this deletion nomination. I count the result as 3-2 in favour of deletion, and one comment with an unclear leaning. I'll give it a couple of days in case anyone wants to shift sections to other articles, and after that I'll hit the nuke button. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 18:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- 50-50 is not a consensus to delete, and I'll promptly restore it - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- But it's just a trivia list. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- You're just reiterating what you originally said when nominating it. The issue I'm addressing here is the blitheringly stupid notion of deleting articles on a 3-2-1 straw poll - David Gerard (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- In what fundamentalist system of mathematics does a 3 to 2 majority equal 50-50? It's a 60% majority. If I forward a vote in favour of deletion that takes it to 66% majority, enough to alter policy on this site. Go transplant the reasonable and sourced assertions to the Christianity article. If you can then build a large enough section that's properly referenced to warrant a separate article we'll talk. Until then the will of the mob is clear, most don't care enough about the article to bother expressing an opinion and those that do want it deleted with a clear majority. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 10:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Imagine it being applied to the rest of the wiki. That's why "delete" is "consensus to delete", not "straw poll with almost no participants says delete" - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Considering we have this which it's probably based on, I'd edge to the side of "delete" but perhaps try and shut the points elsewhere if possible.
sshole 13:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Imagine it being applied to the rest of the wiki." Oh! My! Me! Won't someone think of the children! When you've finished being hysterical...
- "RationalWiki is a mobocracy. Some would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the way things are done around here"). But the most helpful description is that, in the course of numerous talk page discussions and edits to articles, a rough consensus emerges."
- The mob has spoken at a two to one ratio that this article is worthy of deletion. You choosing not to believe there is a reason to delete is neither here nor there. If you believe that this article can gain sufficient support to remain as anything other than a paragraph in the Christianity, Hypocrisy or Ten Commandments articles go ahead and put it on the intercom. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 15:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree that a two to one ratio is enough for deletion. Generally, there is no discussion when we do delete. It's one of those things that are quite obvious. In this case, I see the need for such an article. Cause it is a very real world issue, and we should be addressing it. Is the issue a need to improve on it? then let's do that! GodotDear god, fucking grow up 21:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree that a two to one ratio is enough for deletion. Generally, there is no discussion when we do delete. It's one of those things that are quite obvious. In this case, I see the need for such an article. Cause it is a very real world issue, and we should be addressing it. Is the issue a need to improve on it? then let's do that!
- "Imagine it being applied to the rest of the wiki." Oh! My! Me! Won't someone think of the children! When you've finished being hysterical...
- Considering we have this which it's probably based on, I'd edge to the side of "delete" but perhaps try and shut the points elsewhere if possible.
- Imagine it being applied to the rest of the wiki. That's why "delete" is "consensus to delete", not "straw poll with almost no participants says delete" - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- In what fundamentalist system of mathematics does a 3 to 2 majority equal 50-50? It's a 60% majority. If I forward a vote in favour of deletion that takes it to 66% majority, enough to alter policy on this site. Go transplant the reasonable and sourced assertions to the Christianity article. If you can then build a large enough section that's properly referenced to warrant a separate article we'll talk. Until then the will of the mob is clear, most don't care enough about the article to bother expressing an opinion and those that do want it deleted with a clear majority. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 10:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- You're just reiterating what you originally said when nominating it. The issue I'm addressing here is the blitheringly stupid notion of deleting articles on a 3-2-1 straw poll - David Gerard (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- But it's just a trivia list. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
If no less a Christian than Martin Luther felt that lying to help the church was justified then I think the concept has some pedigree.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is the issue less of the fact that "lying for jesus is mean" or some such, as Weasle compares us to CP and more of an issue that we need real theological positions that justify the behavior? Ie., make the article better? --GodotDear god, fucking grow up 21:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- This article could do with some improvement but I vote against deletion. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I say keep as well. Improvement, is, of course, good. Blue (is useful) 23:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- If it is deleted, it should be redirected to Liars for Jesus. PeterQuasniki 2012! 23:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- What is it supposed to be, though? If it's supposed to make the argument that Christians are more likely to lie than followers of other (or no) religions, then it needs more to substantiate it than just a few disconnected examples. If it's supposed to be just a list of disconnected examples, then what's the point? WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 00:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I believe it's supposed to be documenting a trend of a particular conversion practice. Other uses include comparison to taqiyya. Blue (is useful) 00:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- What is it supposed to be, though? If it's supposed to make the argument that Christians are more likely to lie than followers of other (or no) religions, then it needs more to substantiate it than just a few disconnected examples. If it's supposed to be just a list of disconnected examples, then what's the point? Wėąṣėḷőįď
- If it is deleted, it should be redirected to Liars for Jesus. PeterQuasniki 2012! 23:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I say keep as well. Improvement, is, of course, good. Blue (is useful) 23:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- This article could do with some improvement but I vote against deletion. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is the issue less of the fact that "lying for jesus is mean" or some such, as Weasle compares us to CP and more of an issue that we need real theological positions that justify the behavior? Ie., make the article better? --
Religions other than just Christianity also believe in this. This is my only objection. — Unsigned, by: 27.33.81.88 / talk / contribs
Perfect place for the discussion of Messianic Judaism though[edit]
Christian sects taking on a veneer of Judaism to try and convince uneducated Jews that they can convert to Christianity and remain Jewish AllonY (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I actually got approached by one of them in New York City. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Really not the perfect place to discuss that. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Really not the perfect place to discuss that. Wēāŝēīōīď
- Why not, its the perfect example of lying for JesusAllonY (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not the same as Jews for Jesus? -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, a different group that is far more deceptive. They will never use the name Jesus since they know that idetifies them as Christians. Instead, they look for uneducated Jews, generally those who do not know Hebrew, and take them to a service that looks like a Jewish service. Since the person does not know Hebrew and the usual Christian terminology is missing, they don't realise they are at a non-Jewish service. They don't hear Jesus, but Yeshua or Yeshua HaMashiach or Yeshuah ben Yosef. Nobody refers to the New Testament but the Brit Chadashah etc AllonY (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not the same as Jews for Jesus? -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why not, its the perfect example of lying for JesusAllonY (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- What specifically is "lying" about Messianic Judaism? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 19:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- What specifically is "lying" about Messianic Judaism? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- What, aside from claiming that adding Jesus to Judaism makes it complete? Or how about trying to hide its Chrsitian connection by using unidentifiable terms like Yeshua for Jesus, Brit Chadashah for the New Testament, Rabbi Shaul for St Paul etc. How about their claim to being Jewish despite the fact that there is not a single stream of Judaism that recognises, and in fact every stream of Judaism states they aren othing more than Christian missionariesAllonY (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- They're not even proper Scotsmen either. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 19:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- EC. Like Seth said above, we have a page dedicated to Messaianic Judaism. That's a better place for any of these questions. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 19:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- And as I just replied to him, Jews for Jesus are NOT the same group as Messianic JudaismAllonY (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Okay then. here. Quit bitchin' and start writin'. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 19:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Whose bitching? I was just following the site rules and discussing a major change to a page before doing it. You prefer it on another page, fine. I'll get going in the morning, its way too late to start a large article now without making huge errors.AllonY (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Having read and corrected much of your writing in the past couple of days, I am grateful that you are proceeding in that fashion. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 20:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Whose bitching? I was just following the site rules and discussing a major change to a page before doing it. You prefer it on another page, fine. I'll get going in the morning, its way too late to start a large article now without making huge errors.AllonY (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Okay then. here. Quit bitchin' and start writin'. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 19:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- And as I just replied to him, Jews for Jesus are NOT the same group as Messianic JudaismAllonY (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- EC. Like Seth said above, we have a page dedicated to Messaianic Judaism. That's a better place for any of these questions. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 19:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- They're not even proper Scotsmen either. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- What, aside from claiming that adding Jesus to Judaism makes it complete? Or how about trying to hide its Chrsitian connection by using unidentifiable terms like Yeshua for Jesus, Brit Chadashah for the New Testament, Rabbi Shaul for St Paul etc. How about their claim to being Jewish despite the fact that there is not a single stream of Judaism that recognises, and in fact every stream of Judaism states they aren othing more than Christian missionariesAllonY (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't get your whole perspective. Do you own judaism? Jews can accept that jesus is the messiah and remain jewish. Judaism does not have a set dogma claiming the messiah can not have come. Nor does believing in the Christ change your matrilinal heritage as a jew. Hell, outright converstion to other religions from Xianity to buddhism does not take away your jewishness... atheism doesn't take away your jewishness...GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 22:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know that much about Messianic Judaism, but I have personally run into the Jews for Jesus crowd. They're little more than a cult-ish front group of missionaries operating on the notion that Jews are to be "completed" or "perfected." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say "cult"ish. They are heavy proselytizers, sure... but they are not a cult. And I have no problem holding them up to rationality like ever other religion. I have a problem saying "they are lying", just cause someone doesn't like them. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 02:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say "cult"ish. They are heavy proselytizers, sure... but they are not a cult. And I have no problem holding them up to rationality like ever other religion. I have a problem saying "they are lying", just cause someone doesn't like them.
- I don't know that much about Messianic Judaism, but I have personally run into the Jews for Jesus crowd. They're little more than a cult-ish front group of missionaries operating on the notion that Jews are to be "completed" or "perfected." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Doctrine of mental reservation[edit]
Interesting. Looks like the Catholic church has special term for this The Doctrine of mental reservation. Mmmm.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Ignatius Loyola[edit]
This site seems to have some interesting quotes oncluding this one from Ignatius Loyola founder of the Jesuits:
- "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
can't seem to find a slam-dunk reference though.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- It comes from his Spiritual Exercises; the Thirteenth Rule of "Rules To Have The True Sentiment In The Church".
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?
14:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Can someone fix my Wiki fail? (on the opening quote)[edit]
I added the opening quote to this from "The Book of Mormon" and someone nicely added links to my source, but they're not ....quite the right links, and I don't know how to fix them, so I'm making a shameless plea for help. The quote "You're making things up again, Arnold!" comes from a song in the Tony-award winning Broadway musical "The Book of Mormon" by the South Park duo and one of the Avenue Q guys working together (and yes, it's as hilarious as you'd think that combination would be, to me at least. YMMV.) Anyway, the song is called "Making Things Up Again" and in it, Elder Arnold Cunningham spends the whole song liberally re-interpreting "official scripture" from the Book of Mormon in ways his superiors would (and do!) find utterly appalling, in the name of somehow finding something in the scriptures that he can make relevant to the lives of the people he's trying to bring to salvation. He can't actually find anything, so he....makes it up, like this: "I just told a lie...No, I didn't LIE...I just used my imagination...And it WORKED!" Anyway, the initial link should be to the musical (if it has a page? If not, I might have to register and add one...bah, more time wasting I don't need...) and the "not that one" should link to the, ahem, "official" Book of Mormon.
Section added[edit]
I have added the section, "Hiding content".Ovsek (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Other Religions lie for their Faith.[edit]
Religions other than just Christianity also believe in this. Some cross links to other relevant articles as they arise would be good. 27.33.81.88 (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if there are other articles similar enough yet. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)