Christians: Is it okay to lie for Christ?

a reply to: adjensen

In response to the original question "Is it ever ok to lie for Christ" I would have to say that, in accordance with my personal Faith and understanding, that no, it is not . I'm not trying to tell anyone else what they can or can't do, but...sheesh!...nothing about seeking to defame another person or persuasion seems in accordance with any Scripture I'm aware of.

I have to take a bit of the humble approach to the matter when it comes to other persons understanding of God's Will because I am not able (nor qualified) to pass any sort of judgement on another human being, insomuch that I have no idea what has prompted them to go about the things they do in the matter they have chosen. It's simply not my place to pass judgement on another human being.

Nonetheless, it is a very sad moment for me when I run across persons who claim to love and cherish God above all else spends more time trying to dissect and bad mouth another person or path just because it's happens to be different from theirs.

If God didn't intend for diversity in this world, why would he have taken the time to make so much of it?

The choice to rebel against, slander and fight various sentient aspects and manifestations of Creation (other people and their personal path to understanding and peace) just seems like a pointless and counterproductive effort and in direct violation of the very code of ethics that Christ came to try and clarify.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: deadeyedick

You can't understand or handle the truth when it is told. The absolute truth is a danger to your life. If i told you then you would die.

Sorry amigo, I'm calling cheeze on that one.



Tell me the absolute truth because apparently you know what it is.



I have thrown down the gauntlet....tell me! If you back away and don't tell me, or you tell me and I don't die....



What are we to assume? You lied? Adolescent bragging? You're drunk and talking out of your ass? Do it....



Otherwise from here on out you have destroyed your own credibility...your choice





u2u me with the absolute truth now!!!

What you say would be eaqual to the man who saved the day at the slaughterhouse in ok yesterday instead of going to his truck and and getting the gun and stopping the killer it would be eaqual to him handing the gun to him and saying that knife takes too long now you can kill us all.

That is exactly the type of response I anticipated!

From here on out you have no credibility. You have no honor to the truth! You brag the hide!

originally posted by: adjensen
As a converted Catholic, I'm a bit sensitive to anti-Catholic polemics, and have come to realize that most of it goes back to a book from the 1960s, Roman Catholicism, by Loraine Boettner. Which means that it's mostly rooted in ignorance, willful or not.

You may still be learning, so I'll not go all "polemic" on you. But your above quote is terribly ignorant. Loraine Boettner, who I have never even heard of, has almost nothing to do with the perceived hatred of Catholics by America. Catholics are despised because of the inquisition, the killing of millions of people that simply disagreed with them, and the constant political upheavals and wars they called throughout history. The entire Great Awakening was caused by leaving catholic religion behind and striving for freedom of religion. Thus America was founded on the basis of anti-Catholic principles.

Surely you must realize that the Protestant Reformation in the 1400-1800's was not caused by a book written in 1960....right? I would say Alexander Hisop caused the biggest stir in the modern times in regards to Catholics. And Fox's book of Martyrs in the olden times (1700's). But Loraine Boettner???? No, she doesn't even place.

Keep reading and ask any questions if your interested. This post is not an attack on you, and thanks for being inquisitive.

a reply to: KJVBible

You may still be learning, so I'll not go all "polemic" on you. But your above quote is terribly ignorant. Loraine Boettner, who I have never even heard of, has almost nothing to do with the perceived hatred of Catholics by America.

I see that you are new here, welcome to ATS.

My above quote is not "terribly ignorant," your interpretation of it is wrong. Firstly, as Charles pointed out, I said "most", and secondly, I'm talking about modern polemics -- why would I care about polemics from hundreds of years ago?

Now, you will most likely not do the research into modern anti-Catholicism that I did, so I'll help you out. What Loraine Boettner (who is a man, by the way,) did was to collect up all of the anti-Catholic material that he could find -- stuff from the 19th Century, testimony of disgruntled ex-priests and nuns, misquoted bits from Papal statements and the Catechism -- verified absolutely none of it with any credible sources, put together a huge book and published it.

Since then, anti-Catholics like, oh, Jimmy Swaggart, Jack Chick and Bill Jackson have used Boettner's book as their "go to" source for all things anti-Catholic, along with similar non-credible sources like Alberto Rivera or Malachi Martin. When you read unsubstantiated claims about Catholicism on the Internet, it is likely that a lot of it can be traced back to Boettner and his followers.

Catholics are despised because of the inquisition, the killing of millions of people that simply disagreed with them, and the constant political upheavals and wars they called throughout history.

See, here's the problem. I am an historian, so when I want to learn about something in the past, I go look at history, I don't go look at polemics, which is what you apparently do. Because I do research through credible sources, I know what the Inquisition was all about, what the process was and what it was intended to do, and how many people actually suffered through it. No credible historian would ever tell you that the Catholic Church killed "millions of people that simply disagreed with them", and the blood flowed on both sides of the Reformation, which in many areas was as much about politics as it was about religion.

If you truly have an open mind about learning, I would suggest that you invest 46 minutes in this excellent BBC documentary which explores the actual historical record, as regards the Inquisition. If you wish to continue to wallow in the ignorance of polemic driven knowledge, I'd suggest skipping it.

a reply to: adjensen

Hello and Namaste, my friend. The ancient battles between religions and their ideals have been ongoing for thousands of years. It is just part of the world. No matter where you go, it is always about who is right or wrong, good or bad, moral and immoral. Duality at its finest. And with this mentality, most people are going to fight to the very end to prove that their religion is right and yours is wrong. And to add to the fire, they are going to ridicule and perhaps go to war with you on belief alone.

Therefore, the point to life is to go beyond Duality by manifesting God's Truth. The Truth of Spirit will test all things, if it be of Heaven or is it something created by the Mind of Man. Your objective is to detach your mind from Duality and focus on Unity. What is Unity? Unity is how the Mind of God functions. Unity doesn't see Good or Evil, it sees Love, Oneness, and Wisdom. It is a Single Mind, seeing ALL things as ONE--Uni-Verse, not splitting it into different viewpoints, arguments, and factions as the Mind of Man sees it. So therefore, bring Divisions into Oneness.

It doesn't matter what religion, political party, social group, or belief system you are with, it is the same. You will be walking in Duality because this Physical World is the epitome of separation. Your job is to eventually Master Oneness and thus must go beyond the Mind of Man.

God's Truth in the matter that you stated goes deeper than the naked eye can perceive. The statues of Mother and Child is a very, very ancient symbol, even older than Babylonian times. They just happened to go by the same symbolism as our ancestors from over 26,000 years ago. Mother and Child are Two of the Three aspects of the Trinity. Remember to manifest Unity, you must see God as the 3 Powers of God. Please read a post I made last year concerning the Holy Trinity

Mother Mary does represent the Female (or Mother) aspect of God, while Master Jesus represents the Son aspect. If you read the post above, the Son keeps the balance of Mother and Father in all of Creation. The same can be said for Mother and Child, Semiramis and Tammuz (Nimrod was his Father), respectively. So, throughout history and time, religions and spiritual paths talk about the Mother and Child as representations of Creation. A woman on Earth who is pregnant with child can also represent the Symbol of Universal Creation.

Realize that the normal congregation from both Protestants and Catholic do not understand the full picture presented in these statues all over the world. I have never said this before, but I will say it here. Master Jesus said it before in his own words. Ignorance leads to Death, while Knowledge and Wisdom leads to Life.

May God's Love and Peace be with you always.

a reply to: adjensen

Thank you for your reply.

"Alberto Rivera or Malachi Martin" Now those two I have heard of. And you say many of their arguments come from the guy you posted (guy? really? with a name like that....), thanks for clarifying that.

But as for history, you must realizes that it don't matter how scholarly and educated the historian is, the fact remains; whoever wins the wars, write the history books. And if you recall, Rome, Catholic Rome ruled for close to 1000 years, (called the devil's millennium) after the Political Roman Empire fell (also close to a 1000 year reign strangely enough).

During this time the church wrote the "official history" to which you are referring to. So unless you believe the current official news (history) from MSNBC, CNN, BBC, FOX, CBS, etc, why would you believe the official history about the Catholic church's amazing past?

Once again, Fox's book of martyrs cannot be denied. It was a staple in every protestants house, along with a King James Bible and a Hymn book for over 300 years.

Now, if you really want to get into the Catholic church, lets weigh their cultic beliefs up against the Holy Bible to which they claim to believe. I know my Bible well (as all Christians should) , and it does not look good for Catholics at all when you look in your Bible to see what Jesus Christ had to say about the Catholic church. The "church" had only one choice in order to save face when compared to the Bible; Kill the opposition, or change the Bible. Thus the Catholic church made their own Bibles based on 4 to 6 corrupt manuscripts.

Watched the BBC doc......interesting, but still has a clear bias. BBC and all.

a reply to: KJVBible

I'm afraid that you're still not getting it. I am an academically trained historian -- I understand historical research methods, how to check for bias, using multiple sources, various arguments for and against authenticity. When I hear something that seems a little dodgy, I neither accept nor reject it, I go in search of evidence for or against it.

I have seen people claim numbers of deaths from the Inquisition that exceed the number of people who lived in Europe in the time. How anyone with a brain can claim that, I don't know, but when presented with contrarian evidence (even just the evidence of common sense,) they ignore it, because they are so entrenched in their beliefs that the facts do not matter.

I once believed, as you apparently still do, that the Inquisition was this horrific thing that the Church used to kill massive numbers of people. But when I finally decided to get to the root of the matter, I was surprised to find that the Vatican had released access to their records (the Inquisitions were legal proceedings, and they kept meticulous records,) and when actual historians dug in, they found that perhaps as many as 5,000 had been executed over the span of 350 years. That's less than 15 people a year… how many people do you think the Spanish government killed a year?

Why are these records believable? Because the people making them were accountable for them to be accurate, and they never thought anyone outside the church would ever see them. In other words, we can presume them to be accurate, because there is good reason to believe that they would be, and no reason, apart from suspicion on some peoples' parts, who just want them to be wrong, to believe that they are not accurate.

Once again, Fox's book of martyrs cannot be denied.

The funny thing about Foxe's Book of Martyrs (which, yes, I have read,) is that in 16th and 17th century England, where the book was produced, it was the English government who were killing Catholic priests and laity by drawing and quartering them by the hundreds, for no reason other than being Catholic. Did you get far enough into the documentary to hear how the Inquisition, early on, ruled that "claims of witchcraft were delusional", and that no one could be charged with it? When you hear about people burning witches, those are Protestants who are lighting the fire.

And don't even get me started on the treatment of the Anabaptists by their fellow Protestants.

The "church" had only one choice in order to save face when compared to the Bible; Kill the opposition, or change the Bible. Thus the Catholic church made their own Bibles based on 4 to 6 corrupt manuscripts.

I would suggest you find a basic text on the historical basis of the Bible. The Catholic Bible is the original Bible, and we have manuscripts going back over a thousand years to prove it. The Protestants are the ones who changed the Bible (by dropping the apocrypha, though as you surely know, the 1611 edition of the King James Version had them in it,) to conform to their non-Catholic theology.

You can see the oldest copy of the Bible in existence here: Codex Sinaiticus, and in it, you will find a number of books that are not in your Bible, and the reason that they are not is because your Protestant forefathers didn't want you to read them. But Jesus did read them -- when he quotes Scripture in the Gospels, more often than not, he is quoting the Septuagint.

Watched the BBC doc……interesting, but still has a clear bias. BBC and all.

Since when is the BBC an arm of the Vatican? BBC = British Broadcasting Corporation, it's owned by the British government.

a reply to: adjensen

I was surprised to find that the Vatican had released access to their records (the Inquisitions were legal proceedings, and they kept meticulous records,) and when actual historians dug in, they found that perhaps as many as 5,000 had been executed over the span of 350 years.

We will have to agree to disagree on this point as you will never concede that the Vatican's history keeping is "lacking" to say the least as it would erode your authority as an historian since you must use the official documents to make your decisions. Thus this bias will never be reconciled so I leave it here. But even if the Catholic church only killed ONE (1) person in the name of religion, let alone the 5000, that would be 1 too much for me, as it should be for you or any other sane man.

and they never thought anyone outside the church would ever see them. In other words, we can presume them to be accurate,

Very believable point and I see nothing wrong with it. But still, who said they released ALL the records....doubt it.

And don't even get me started on the treatment of the Anabaptists by their fellow Protestants.

Well now, funny you should mention them, as I am an Anabaptist. (We call our self independent Baptists today) and I can trace our church back to Antioch, 67 AD. during the time of Paul. Catholics only came about when their political empire (the same ones who killed our savior you know, and Paul) had a financial collapse from to much consumption and racial integration, and the leaders changed from a political entity to a religious one, thus the Holy Roman Empire was born, instead of just the Roman Empire. Same killers, same blood on their hands, same leaders....Caesar became pope and the world suffered 1000 more years under "them" while Catholics and Protestants alike killed my people, the Huguenots, Donatists, Anabaptists, etc.

You can see the oldest copy of the Bible in existence here: Codex Sinaiticus, and in it, you will find a number of books that are not in your Bible, and the reason that they are not is because your Protestant forefathers didn't want you to read them. But Jesus did read them -- when he quotes Scripture in the Gospels, more often than not, he is quoting the Septuagint.

My King James Bible did not have Apocrypha in the text. It placed these non-canonical books in between testaments for additional reading, but not for scripture. The Catholic church has the Apocrypha within the actual text as part of canon, which it is not. No church father ever quoted even one word from the Apocrypha, and especially not Jesus.
The Septuagint you referenced that Jesus quoted was not an Apocrypha book, it was a Greek translation of the Old Testament. (which was made by Origen after Christ died, not in 200 BC as "scholars would have you believe, that's a lie). As for manuscripts, Sinaiticus was the worst of all of them, closely beaten out by Vaticanus. On top of that, if you can believe it, Sinaiticus was found in a TRASH CAN at St. Catherine’s monastery, where the monk had thrown it away because he made to many errors in copying it over. This is all well documented history

Once again I am not trying to be polemic, I just don't want you to fall for the lies of the "one true church". Never trust a man who wears a dress, never trust a man who refuses to marry yet wants your young children to join him in "prayer", and never trust a man with you deepest, darkest secrets and sins in a confessional booth. I know more about what I am talking about then you think...

As for BBC, do you really trust any news outlet? I don't, unless they are not funded in an way by the very government that gives them the news to report! lol

a reply to: KJVBible

Dear KJVBible,

Please, I really don't understand your objections. Or rather, I think I do and I hope I'm wrong. Can we find a common base to start from, before we vanish into the cloud of religious attacks?

Are we agreed that:

1.) The photos in the OP indicate that a lie is being told?

2.) Lying for God is wrong?

3.) The question about how many of today's criticisms of Roman Catholicism comes from a particular book is not absolutely central to our inquiry?

If we agree there, we can proceed.

If I understand your belief, the History of the Catholic Church is unreliable because they "won the war." That implies that the losers always write accurate history, and the winners always lie. I don't see how you can defend that position.

There is another obvious problem. England is a Protestant country (to the extent it has any religion at all), apparently they "won." But in this case you say that the history of the winners, Foxe's Book of Martyrs cannot be denied. This appears to be contradictory. Indeed, Foxe is considered to have some historical problems of it's own.

In the words of Thomas S. Freeman, one of the most important living Foxe scholars, "current scholarship has formed a more complex and nuanced estimate of the accuracy of Acts and Monuments....Perhaps [Foxe] may be most profitably seen in the same light as a barrister pleading a case for a client he knows to be innocent and whom he is determined to save. Like the hypothetical barrister, Foxe had to deal with the evidence of what actually happened, evidence that he was rarely in a position to forge.

But he would not present facts damaging to his client, and he had the skills that enabled him to arrange the evidence so as to make it conform to what he wanted it to say. Like the barrister, Foxe presents crucial evidence and tells one side of a story which must be heard. But he should never be read uncritically, and his partisan objectives should always be kept in mind."

en.wikipedia.org...

Oh, and it couldn't have been a staple in every protestant household. It was a massive work, costing three week's wages for a skilled worker.

I know my Bible well (as all Christians should) , and it does not look good for Catholics at all when you look in your Bible to see what Jesus Christ had to say about the Catholic church.

Really? Jesus talked about the Catholic Church? Well I suppose, if you're talking about the time when Jesus instituted His Church, but other than that, He didn't discuss the Catholic Church.

The historicity of the Bible has been far more ably defended by adjensen than I could ever hope to, but if you're are going to claim it's corrupted, you'll have to present the documents it was corrupted from. I eagerly await your disclosure of those documents.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: adjensen

Well, that's pretty damning, indeed. Mary and the baby Jesus are just the Catholic replacements of Babylonian gods.

The esoteric theme of mother and child, as I have said earlier, is repeated throughout human history. Isn't the Mary and Jesus story, especially the virgin birth twist, just another telling of Isis and Horus?



Nobody here is lying, even though the picture they're using are wrong, they're still just stating the obvious.

a reply to: KJVBible

Well now, funny you should mention them, as I am an Anabaptist. (We call our self independent Baptists today) and I can trace our church back to Antioch, 67 AD. during the time of Paul.

I see that you got yourself banned, so I'll skip the rest of this post, but I have to correct your misstatement here.

No, you are not an Anabaptist -- the Anabaptists are today best known as the Amish, Hutterites and Mennonites. Baptists are not Anabaptists, and no, you cannot trace your church back to Antioch. That is a common claim for cults today who want to claim that they are the "true church", but only the Catholic, Orthodox Catholic and Anglican churches can point to an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession with the evidence of the historical record. There is zero evidence that Christ, the Apostles or the Early Church Fathers taught Protestant theology.