imagine what would become of religion


if lies were disallowed.

We all know a good lie in the course of religion is acceptable even to god. I mean, Luther says it. Eusebius alludes to it. Even Paul agrees to doing it.

so friends, start your religion and use lies if you must as long as the cause is right.

and remember that a loving god sends no one to hell. Should you find yourself in the pit, you chose it willingly. It says so in the scriptures.

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

55 thoughts on “imagine what would become of religion

  1. Barry says:

    Sod! I chose the wrong faith to follow. One of its tenets is plain speaking at all times. So the use of lies is just not available, regardless of the cause.

    Liked by 1 person

    • makagutu says:

      My friend, you should change your religion. God will not mind it

      Liked by 2 people

      • Barry says:

        If God exists, that existence is in the human potential for good, which our faith often expresses as “that of God” that exists in everybody. Plain Speaking has to do with the right relationship with others.

        However, if you can provide verifiable evidence of the existence of a deity and an authenticated body of works detailing what said deity requires of humankind, then, if after carefully examining such works, I conclude said deity is worthy of following, and that lying for said deity’s causes is justified, then I just might consider the remote possibility of changing religion.

        Like

  2. Then again, you have to take the concept of lying alllll the way back to the beginning. God was a lie to begin with, invented by a very primitive and no doubt fearful culture to explain weather, phases of the moon, shooting stars, and why people die. Every culture had it’s own version of a deity, and every one of them explained what man himself couldn’t.

    Once man began to understand the laws of nature the idea of God as the prime mover became the idea of God as the mover who made certain things happen and those we called Laws.

    I also suspect that if we totally abandoned the religions we have now, new ones would spring up with a different deity, but still A God. Folks seem to need one.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Neil Rickert says:

    It isn’t so simple. Telling a lie is saying something that you do not believe is true. But many of the religious people do believe their religion. So they are not telling lies.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Kinya says:

    A loving God sends no one to hell๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚
    I wish it was this simple

    Like

  5. Ah, Martin Luther! What a feller! Kind to all folks, including Jews and peasants! Lovely, lovely fella! (I lie!)

    Like

  6. jilldennison says:

    This explains a lot, such as why some so-called ‘Christians’ change their stance according to circumstance or time of day. Also explains why I don’t trust most religious people, though there are a few notable exceptions.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Will Arbaugh says:

    Where does Paul say that lying is ok? Genuinely curious.

    Like

  8. Will Arbaugh says:

    I have. I couldn’t find a single thing to verify your claim.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Maybe start by reading Romans 3:7. And then we can look for more references.

      Like

    • makagutu says:

      Or in Corinthians where he is everything for everyone so he can gain souls for heaven. He might not justify lying but he sure justifies deception.

      Like

      • Will Arbaugh says:

        In Corinthians the claim that he is a Jew to the Jews, the original language and surrounding context of that section (chapter 9) shows that he emphasizes his jewishness, emphasizes his rigid lifestyle of the past, emphasizes his weakness. These were things that were actually already there in his life before his conversion. He isn’t making it up. He begins the paragraph saying he has made himself a servant, not a deceiver. His whole pattern of ministry was to go to a new town, enter the synagogue and speak to the Jews about Jesus from the perspective of the Torah and Jewish thought. That’s a very different thing than saying he was openly justifying deception.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          Will, every time I see apologists bring in context it does seem to me that in religion, plain speak is not allowed. Paul is not emphasising his Jewishness. He is saying he was whatever his audience was. If they were non believers, he acted as one( i don’t know what this means in practice)

          Like

          • Will Arbaugh says:

            Context is plain speak, as I look at it. The time, and original language, the people being spoken to, and the words around a single quote all matter. Its incredibly easy and deceptive to take one sentence from a person’s letter, make a declaration about what that means divorced from the sentences around it. This isn’t torturing Paul’s words and saying “maybe he meant this” this is literally what he says.

            Like

            • makagutu says:

              I don’t know how this is one sentence and not a whole paragraph

              I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain theย more. Andย unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;ย To them thatย are without law, as without law, that I might gain them thatย are without law.ย … I am made all things to all men,ย that I might by all meansย save some. And this I do for the gospel’sย sake”

              .
              He could be still himself and achieve the same ends.
              I know one might argue that he was trying to meet everyone where he was at, but this is all a matter of interpretation since plainspeak doesn’t seem to be one of the strengths of the bible authors

              Like

              • Will Arbaugh says:

                We are also coming at it from the context of a free and open society that we enjoy in modernity. In the time period of Paul, if you weren’t a Jew, you were an outsider and kept out. If you didn’t abide by the particular rigid sect of Judaism you were an outsider and kept out. If you were a non-jew then Jews were the outsider and kept out. He has an “in” to talking to all these people. He was a Jew himself, a high ranking Pharisee, under “the law” in a massively rigid way before conversion, and now he was without the law. He WAS all of those things. But was he going to eat bacon around the Jewish people? Was he going to insist on circumcision with those who were non-jews? These positions are found elsewhere and I other letters. That’s not lying. That’s not deception.

                Like

                • makagutu says:

                  While I wouldn’t want this post to degenerate into discussion about who Paul was, you are making claims about history without offering any proof for your claims.

                  Like

                  • Will Arbaugh says:

                    Also, although I am a Christian, I hope it’s clear that I’m not trying to lean in to convert you or anything. My goal is just to explore this claim honestly. If true that Paul supports lying and it’s clear then I have no problem admitting that and then wrestling that out in my faith whatever the consequences. In Romans he is using rhetorical devices all over the place crafting an argument that ends in “Should we sin so grace can abound all the more? BY NO MEANS.” Which is a phrase of the highest prohibition. That’s not consistent with “He says it’s ok to lie.”. In Corinthians he specifically says that his unique past has led to him to be able to minister to the Jews, the strictest adherents to the law, the non-jews, and the weak. Is that deception? Is that lying? Is it a deception if I tend to talk Anime with my friends who like anime and Football to my friends who like Football? No. If I try to explain a concept to my anime friends using a Football analogy will that be effective? To come into either of these saying “See, the Bible says lying is fine if you do it for God” simply doesn’t seem to bear out under honest, logical scrutiny.

                    Like

                    • makagutu says:

                      Recall I said in a previous response that by being jews to the jews et cetera, it could be argued without doing violence to the passage that he was trying to meet everyone where he was. But i said he could as well have presented himself faithfully as he was and not try to be everything for everyone.
                      In Romans he asks if his actions (lying) brought souls into the fold, why call him a sinner. Why ask such a question?
                      Try to convert me would be a waste of both our times.

                      Like

                    • Will Arbaugh says:

                      I agree. It would be a waste. I think reading the three chapters before in Romans and a chapter or two after can answer that question. I hate when my own fellow Christians take one verse “spiritual soundbite” and say that one thing is all it says. MANY perversions and evils have been unleashed on the world this way and I reject all of those instances. It’s there in the text. I know saying “so, read the Bible around the bit” sounds like a waste of time, but the answer to that question IS there. Personally, I groan when Paul gets like this because you almost have to make a flow chart of the argument like you sometimes have to do for Socrates or Aristotle. Even I will admit that sometimes this comes off as Paul saying “Ok, you think philosophical gymnastics are impressive? I can go there to explain what I just explained simply and will explain simply again at the end.”. For example, “I do not do what I want to do. But what I do not want to do I do. But it is not I who do it, but…”. I call this the “do do do” passage. If you really want answer to “what the heck? Is this what Paul is really saying? That lying is ok?” The answer is there.
                      Btw, the other two examples you gave of Luther and the other guy whose name escapes me…I haven’t yet verified if they actually said it, because sussing out if Paul actually said it is more critical to me, but if they did, I condemn them on those points. It’s flat out wrong. And that goes for the pastor’s, televangelists, popes, or priests who think that way. Screw them all. And that’s actually Jesus’ position of the matter who said that those in teaching and preaching positions who lead others to sin wi have an extremely harsh punishment. They will pay a price…in this life or the next, I don’t know but…screw those guys.

                      Like

                    • makagutu says:

                      I see you are very polite in your choice of language as you address cherry picking. Paul says all scripture should be used for instruction and you know the rest. So do we always have to read the damn book or a portion of it should be sufficient? I insist that Paul or whoever wrote those epistles should have spoken plainly to leave no room for their work to be misread especially because of the additional claim that a person’s life in the netherworld depends on believing those same words.
                      You mention Aristotle or Socrates. They make no claim of being inspired by the gods or that their writing is to take you to heaven and therefore even if they didn’t speak plainly, I would have no problem with them.

                      Like

                    • Will Arbaugh says:

                      “should have” I agree. It would save us a whole lot of headache. That said, one of the things I’ve come to realize recently as I struggle through similar questions (for the intellectually honest Christian the process is ongoing) is that Paul was writing specific letters to specific groups of people. Almost all of them were churches that he had planted or lived among for a longer period of time. He knew them, they knew him, he’d spoken to them, argued with them, had daily relationships with them, knew their kids, borrowed a cloak he was sending back. So, we are getting Paul’s side of the letter. He didn’t know that these letters would be so valuable to the people that they would be copied over and over and transmitted to others. This letter presumes a set of shared values and understanding. The church at Rome and the church at Corinth were different sets of people, different sets of history, with different spiritual issues. There’s one that had a church prostitute and he charged at that one condemning it soundly. Another church had differed problems. So, it’s similar to when we have a phone conversation and someone can only hear one side. Would we take one second of dialogue and walk away saying we know what that’s all about independent of anything else said? No. We would have to hear the entirety of at least half of the conversation to get an idea how that one second of dialogue fit. I know it’s different because this is “God’s Holy Word and Eternal Destiny Rest on Getting it Right”. Crappy journalism rests on a one second sound bite. So does crappy theology. We wouldn’t treat any other text like “One sentence out of a million should read exactly as plain independent of all the rest of the text”. And I think it’s irresponsible and lazy to do that to this text. Otherwise we would be fine living by the scripture that talks about Judas betraying Jesus and because he was a follower of Jesus we should go do the same. It makes no sense to do that. So, yes, to actually understand The Iliad one has to read the whole section at least, the whole book ideally. Otherwise ignorance is the only possible result.

                      Like

                    • makagutu says:

                      First, intellectually honest Christian sounds like a misnomer.
                      You have a small point on laziness regarding taking just a single paragraph but I insist if the Christians insist that we treat their bible specially, we must demand highly of it. Many people only know the first part of Nietzche’s quote- god is dead. And with that they think they know of his works.
                      I don’t think Paul existed and wrote the epistles. There are scholarship on the authenticity of those epistles that I have read and they make for good reading.

                      Like

                    • Will Arbaugh says:

                      Oh, I’m sure it does sound like a misnomer. By that I mean that…if as a Christian I am pro-life, I believe life is sacred and proclaim that then that needs to be in other areas of my life. I have to be against war and I have to be against the death penalty. Maybe it’s the wrong term.
                      As that we demand highly of it, then we must read around the verse and not just the single snippet. It’s not enough to say we don’t know what a word means, demand that the word be understandable, condemn those who use the word we don’t understand, and not go look it up to understand what it means. I heard the Nietzshe quote glibly condemned by a pastor once, went and read what came before and after the quote and it was fascinating. I could just as easily say that Nietzche never existed and didn’t write “Beyond Good and Evil” or “Thus Spake Zarathustra” and create a theory that it was an anti-communist cabal of writers and luminaries. The text exists. If we say “What is this one single line of bullcrap?” in Paul but condemn others for not reading beyond the soundbite in Nietzche…pot…meet kettle. Thank you for this back and forth. I’ve been very happy to have a rational discussion with anyone in this day and age. I wish you peace and also thank you for making me think afresh.

                      Like

                    • makagutu says:

                      Except we have contemporary documents about nietzche. Show me any about Paul’s contemporary which isn’t in the bible. I will wait.

                      Like

                    • Will Arbaugh says:

                      Nietzsche died in 1900. After printing press. Paul was in the first hundred years BC written by hand on ancient paper. Huh. I wonder why…

                      Like

                    • makagutu says:

                      We have stories of Nero. Of Plutarch.
                      For Paul, nada. And the acts don’t cut it.

                      Like

                    • Will Arbaugh says:

                      An emperor, and a famous even in his day philosopher…vs an itinerant preacher who lived in poverty. Kind of apples and oranges. At least you have to believe Jesus and John the Baptist existed because of Josephus. ;).

                      Like

                    • makagutu says:

                      Haha
                      Josephus really? You must be kidding

                      Like

                    • Will Arbaugh says:

                      Ah. Your standard was any source outside the Bible. Now I understand. ๐Ÿ™‚

                      Like

                    • makagutu says:

                      I have often found that most religious people are pro life only when it is abortion being discussed but will be there supporting or joining armies, police forces and supporting the death penalty. Its refreshing to see you take the same position as Tolstoy. No to death penalty and no to wars.

                      Like

  9. Will Arbaugh says:

    I was about halfway through “War and Peace” when I found out he held the same position. I figured I was in pretty good company if that was true. Lol.

    Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s