Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[RationalOkie]

Btw, how does one "morally corrupt" something?

 

Give them a science book.

[Neon Genesis]

I'm pretty sure LNC already responded to that post I made months ago. Now he's responding to posts he's already responded to.

[Antlerman]

I'm pretty sure LNC already responded to that post I made months ago. Now he's responding to posts he's already responded to.

Ever seen the TV show Monk? I think he's going to burst a vessel in his brain trying to get these all responded to.

[mwc]

Ever seen the TV show Monk? I think he's going to burst a vessel in his brain trying to get these all responded to.

From the few episodes I've seen all the way through, at least Monk can be reasonably entertaining. Is that EVER going to happen with LNC? I'd have canceled him long ago and put some infomercials in his spot.

 

mwc

[bdp]

However, there were people by the name of Jesus of Nazareth...

 

Prove it.

 

The 'bible' was not written but collected, and done so with an agenda. Whoever wrote down the 'gospels' may have believed every word they wrote but that doesn't mean it's not fiction.

 

First, I am trying to find where the quote came from that you attribute to me.

 

Post #509 - I edited my post which is why the time stamps seem contradictory.

[chefranden]

...You will find the Church is at the bottom of it all and have for 1500 years, at least. They, the ministers, will only tell give you little pieces of what is agreed that can be divulged, but they won't tell you everything. But beware to have on angry minister on your hands when you reveal what you've learned. None of it ever happened- it's all rewritten mythology.

 

I'm sorry to have to sound like I'm on Laughing Nutsy Child's side, but this just isn't so. I was a minister and there was no secret information that was not to be divulged. It wasn't a mystery religion and hasn't been for centuries.

[dagnarus]

So lack of a'hum "Evidence" is proof of something? Wow, I was totally lied to in college. Why did I even waste my time?

No, no, you can't generalize it. It's a unidirectional condition to that rule. Only lack of evidence for the supernatural is automatically proof of the supernatural. Any lack of evidence for a natural explanation is by default evidence that a natural explanation does not exist.

 

That is a complete and utter misrepresentation. If that were true we'd believe everything. The correct rule is only lack of evidence for the biblical account is automatically proof of the biblical account (this can also be generalized to only lack of evidence for whatever I'm pushing is proof of whatever I'm pushing). You almost had us believing Allah and Vishnu.

[Mriana]

...You will find the Church is at the bottom of it all and have for 1500 years, at least. They, the ministers, will only tell give you little pieces of what is agreed that can be divulged, but they won't tell you everything. But beware to have on angry minister on your hands when you reveal what you've learned. None of it ever happened- it's all rewritten mythology.

 

I'm sorry to have to sound like I'm on Laughing Nutsy Child's side, but this just isn't so. I was a minister and there was no secret information that was not to be divulged. It wasn't a mystery religion and hasn't been for centuries.

 

That isn't what I meant. Some churches do not divulge the history or origins of Xianity, leaving their congregations in ignorance and they only divulge some information. For example, I was trying to explain to my mother that Mark came first, then Matthew, Luke, and John and that the name attributed to the book is not necessarily the author. She said she had heard that from her preacher, but had not heard any details about it. The ministers don't inform them of all the details. They don't even explain how women ended up being degraded in the Church- ie Mary Magdaline and Mother Mary being an example of womanhood. They won't even say how Xianity evolved from other myths. Details like that. That is what I'm talking about.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

That isn't what I meant. Some churches do not divulge the history or origins of Xianity, leaving their congregations in ignorance and they only divulge some information. For example, I was trying to explain to my mother that Mark came first, then Matthew, Luke, and John and that the name attributed to the book is not necessarily the author. She said she had heard that from her preacher, but had not heard any details about it. The ministers don't inform them of all the details. They don't even explain how women ended up being degraded in the Church- ie Mary Magdaline and Mother Mary being an example of womanhood. They won't even say how Xianity evolved from other myths. Details like that. That is what I'm talking about.

This is what happened with me. My parents' church still believes that Moses wrote the first five books of the bible, that the gospels are written by who they said they are in the order they're presented in the bible, and that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. The preacher will give some leeway when it comes to Hebrews and will admit that we don't know for certain that Paul wrote it but he's absolutely certain some bible character just had to have written it. At one point he suggested Prisilla could have written it which surprised me given how sexist the church is. But my parents' church will also misrepresent the information to make it seem like these issues are still being debated on by scholars but reassures us that the liberal scholars are losing with their evil anti-supernatural bias. I don't think they're being intentionally dishonest but they are being fooled by the apologetics and are lacking in any criticial thinking skills, so their gullibility makes them more easier to fool.

[chefranden]

That isn't what I meant. Some churches do not divulge the history or origins of Xianity, leaving their congregations in ignorance and they only divulge some information. For example, I was trying to explain to my mother that Mark came first, then Matthew, Luke, and John and that the name attributed to the book is not necessarily the author. She said she had heard that from her preacher, but had not heard any details about it. The ministers don't inform them of all the details. They don't even explain how women ended up being degraded in the Church- ie Mary Magdaline and Mother Mary being an example of womanhood. They won't even say how Xianity evolved from other myths. Details like that. That is what I'm talking about.

 

The ministry isn't a professorship. It is much more like being a kindergarten teacher.

 

When I stared preaching, I went into the nitty gritty of every thing I knew, and looked out upon a sea (a pond really) of glassy eyes. I started a practice of giving childrens' sermonettes and noticed an odd thing. The whole congregation actually paid attention. From then on I preached as if I were talking to children who thought they were adults. The popularity of my sermons gained a good deal of ground.

 

Yes I knew church history, but you couldn't give it away with a premium of a full tank of gas. A self selected few, like yourself, wanted to know. But for the many 2 kinds of sermons worked in the Church of Christ: 1.Simple warm fuzzies. 2. We have the correct doctrine and Episcopalians don't.

 

Since the Episcopal church appeals to a more learned individual, maybe the priest can slather on the knowledge, but I have my doubts.

[Antlerman]

That isn't what I meant. Some churches do not divulge the history or origins of Xianity, leaving their congregations in ignorance and they only divulge some information. For example, I was trying to explain to my mother that Mark came first, then Matthew, Luke, and John and that the name attributed to the book is not necessarily the author. She said she had heard that from her preacher, but had not heard any details about it. The ministers don't inform them of all the details. They don't even explain how women ended up being degraded in the Church- ie Mary Magdaline and Mother Mary being an example of womanhood. They won't even say how Xianity evolved from other myths. Details like that. That is what I'm talking about.

 

The ministry isn't a professorship. It is much more like being a kindergarten teacher.

 

When I stared preaching, I went into the nitty gritty of every thing I knew, and looked out upon a sea (a pond really) of glassy eyes. I started a practice of giving childrens' sermonettes and noticed an odd thing. The whole congregation actually paid attention. From then on I preached as if I were talking to children who thought they were adults. The popularity of my sermons gained a good deal of ground.

 

Yes I knew church history, but you couldn't give it away with a premium of a full tank of gas. A self selected few, like yourself, wanted to know. But for the many 2 kinds of sermons worked in the Church of Christ: 1.Simple warm fuzzies. 2. We have the correct doctrine and Episcopalians don't.

 

Since the Episcopal church appeals to a more learned individual, maybe the priest can slather on the knowledge, but I have my doubts.

Maybe that's part of why I jumped shipped before donning the robes of the ministry myself. Something told me that unless I started jumping up and down and getting everyone their dollar's worth of getting excited for Jesus form of entertainment, people would fall of the ends of the pews as their brains went to sleep. My first clue was in Bible college preaching to the school congregation. There were some who responded going into introspective thought, but the vast majority of them were all smiley and happy when the other students got them all revved up with a pep-rally style sermon. Sheep.

[mwc]

Yes I knew church history, but you couldn't give it away with a premium of a full tank of gas. A self selected few, like yourself, wanted to know. But for the many 2 kinds of sermons worked in the Church of Christ: 1.Simple warm fuzzies. 2. We have the correct doctrine and Episcopalians don't.

 

Since the Episcopal church appeals to a more learned individual, maybe the priest can slather on the knowledge, but I have my doubts.

This is what I've gathered from all the ministers I've known. A number of them were actually were quite highly educated (versed in Latin, Greek and Hebrew) but overall they were more like Cliff Clavin from Cheers. Spewing bad trivia to the masses in strange anecdotes from the pulpit. It was like they got a lobotomy before hitting the stage or something.

 

But all this is really hindsight on my part because I didn't know their super knowledge of history, for example, was superficial at best while, had they wanted to, they could have likely "wowed" us all with their knowledge of the Greek texts and the "true" history of the early church. That's not their purpose though. It's to impress the rest of us bar flies until a more interesting regular comes in. "Norm!"

 

mwc

[Deva]

I spent five years in the Episcopal Church, thinking I could find a way to readjust myself to liberal Christianity and stay in it. I knew that the priest was an intelligent man, but often the sermons he gave were on an elementary school level. He deliberately dumbed them down. I could tell, because occasionally he would come across with something worthwhile.

 

The Christmas and Easter sermons were always the worst. It was exactly like he was talking to a group of children. They were on an incredibly low and simple level with just repeating some stories he knew.

 

I finally decided the man had a narcissistic personality disorder where he had to be the center of attention. He would also say derogatory things about his wife in the sermons. It became so disgusting I could no longer tolerate it. These are some of the reasons I left.

[chefranden]

Yes I knew church history, but you couldn't give it away with a premium of a full tank of gas. A self selected few, like yourself, wanted to know. But for the many 2 kinds of sermons worked in the Church of Christ: 1.Simple warm fuzzies. 2. We have the correct doctrine and Episcopalians don't.

 

Since the Episcopal church appeals to a more learned individual, maybe the priest can slather on the knowledge, but I have my doubts.

This is what I've gathered from all the ministers I've known. A number of them were actually were quite highly educated (versed in Latin, Greek and Hebrew) but overall they were more like Cliff Clavin from Cheers. Spewing bad trivia to the masses in strange anecdotes from the pulpit. It was like they got a lobotomy before hitting the stage or something.

 

But all this is really hindsight on my part because I didn't know their super knowledge of history, for example, was superficial at best while, had they wanted to, they could have likely "wowed" us all with their knowledge of the Greek texts and the "true" history of the early church. That's not their purpose though. It's to impress the rest of us bar flies until a more interesting regular comes in. "Norm!"

 

mwc

 

I was versed in all the verses and I expected I'd wow them with my versatility, but alas it was not to be. This is the reason that theologians talk among themselves, few others give a shit.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Maybe that's part of why I jumped shipped before donning the robes of the ministry myself. Something told me that unless I started jumping up and down and getting everyone their dollar's worth of getting excited for Jesus form of entertainment, people would fall of the ends of the pews as their brains went to sleep. My first clue was in Bible college preaching to the school congregation. There were some who responded going into introspective thought, but the vast majority of them were all smiley and happy when the other students got them all revved up with a pep-rally style sermon. Sheep.

Once at my parents' church, I was asked by one of the Elders if I wanted to lead a bible study class at church because he thought I knew more about the bible than most Christians do and he didn't know I was an atheist. I declined the offer because 1)I'm not a leader type person and get nervous in a leadership role and 2)I would feel hypocritical leading a class on something I didn't believe in anymore. But I think it's kind of tragically ironic that I'm just an ordinary person yet one of the Elders at church thought I knew more about the bible than he did. It also probably doesn't help the sermons that in most fundamentalist churches, just about anyone can get up and start leading a sermon or a class and not have any sort of credibility or degree in the subject of religion at all like you would in other professions.

[Antlerman]

Once at my parents' church, I was asked by one of the Elders if I wanted to lead a bible study class at church because he thought I knew more about the bible than most Christians do and he didn't know I was an atheist. I declined the offer because 1)I'm not a leader type person and get nervous in a leadership role and 2)I would feel hypocritical leading a class on something I didn't believe in anymore. But I think it's kind of tragically ironic that I'm just an ordinary person yet one of the Elders at church thought I knew more about the bible than he did. It also probably doesn't help the sermons that in most fundamentalist churches, just about anyone can get up and start leading a sermon or a class and not have any sort of credibility or degree in the subject of religion at all like you would in other professions.

You should have accepted teaching. You could talk about Doubt, and the different ways of dealing with it. Pointing out how it really isn't faith at all to simply dismiss or deny the things that are challenging your faith, but that it should be considered as honoring to God to try to reconcile your faith with facts. Then lead that into talking about the facts of evolution, church history, and the myth of Biblical innerancy. Then as they start to rend their garments and pick up stones to cast at you, shake off the dust of your Bible at them and leave the room.

 

I did have some people from a church recently say they would like me to be the preacher at the church. But they did so because they are open-minded Christians and felt what I as a former Christian was saying was more inspiring than what their preacher was offering (pretty much their words). Its the difference I suppose between those who are looking for something meaningful personally, and those who find meaning by belonging to a group and can't tolerate what threatens that membership.

 

That pretty much anyone in the church of your parents can get up and start "leading" a sermon, is really more a matter of self-congratulatory actions of members of the group with each other. It's not leadership. There's no vision to challenge and inspire growth. There's no introspection. It's all about affirming your membership, your role, your identity with the group. And the crowds say Amen, signifying they are one of the group and putting off for another day their journey into themselves.

[Neon Genesis]

I might not have minded teaching if they were a more liberal, but I don't feel comfortable accepting a more active role in a church that hates me for who I am and I'm trying to distant myself from them as much as I can without making myself look suspicious. Plus, I've always enjoyed discussing things rather than teaching things. Even when I was a Christian, I always liked Sunday school more than the sermon because at least then you can discuss these issues with others and add your own input. Just listening to one person ramble on about mindless religious piety is boring to me unless it's something truly inspiring. I did hear some pretty interesting sermons in a UU podcast I've been listening to though lately. There was one where they were talking Sufi Islam and the history of Sufi dancing. They were going to teach the members at that UU church how to do Sufi dancing that morning and it made me wish I was there to learn it because it sounded really fascinating to me. In another sermon, they were preaching about process philosophy and I thought it sounded interesting to me.

 

Also, there's the fact that I'm gay and I wouldn't want there to be a church scandal if that ever got out. My parents' church has already been through one scandal several years ago. It wasn't about sex or anything illegal but some of the members were spreading false hateful rumors about the church leadership to force the Elders to resign and this caused a lot of our members to leave the church to other congregations in the area. I wouldn't want to risk causing another disaster like that if it got out I was gay and an atheist and teaching their members.

 

But I think this whole thing about grown adults preferring mindless drivel over something intellectually stimulating is a larger problem with society itself and not just with religion. Like more people would rather listen to mindless pop crap like the Jonas Brothers than something awe-inspiring like Bach or any the other classical music. More people would rather watch mindless robot action like with Transformers than a more intelligent fantasy film like The Golden Compass that actually makes you think about reality. More people would rather listen to politicians spreading outright lies as long as they appeal to their emotions than to care to investigate the facts for themselves and I find this all depressing.

[RationalOkie]

More people would rather listen to politicians spreading outright lies as long as they appeal to their emotions than to care to investigate the facts for themselves and I find this all depressing.

 

Isn't that the truth!

[Auracle]

The Bible never says that a person can be justified before God by keeping the Law. It says that Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. David repented of his sin and was forgiven. The Law was never meant to be a means of salvation, it was meant to help the Jews to live better lives, but it was also meant to show them that they needed a savior and redeemer as no one can keep the Law perfectly, which was the only way that a person could be justified through the Law. People were saved by trusting in God in the OT times just as we are saved by trusting in Jesus in NT times.

 

People were saved by trusting God in the OT times. So, that was working. Yes? How was perfect justice executed at that time, if animal deaths could never totally pay for human sin? How did God execute his perfect justice before Jesus?

 

Phanta

 

I didn't think of this until I just read the quote in your post, Phanta, but:

 

LNC - if people could be saved by trusting in God in the OT times, then why was Jesus even necessary?

[Antlerman]

LNC - if people could be saved by trusting in God in the OT times, then why was Jesus even necessary?

Because he was putting their forgiveness in a Celestial queue, waiting for the pure blood to be shed so he could then take his holy grail and dip into the blood to pour on top of all it and make it invisible. After which then, he could let them in to his presence, because He has a nature that REQUIRES blood in order for it to work properly and allow him to forgive people.

 

You see, even God has laws greater than Himself He has to obey in order to do certain things. God is not the end of the road apparently. There's something beyond Him. At least that's what LNC's myth teaches, even though he can't quite fit it into their theology he memorizes.

[Mriana]

This is what happened with me. My parents' church still believes that Moses wrote the first five books of the bible, that the gospels are written by who they said they are in the order they're presented in the bible, and that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. The preacher will give some leeway when it comes to Hebrews and will admit that we don't know for certain that Paul wrote it but he's absolutely certain some bible character just had to have written it. At one point he suggested Prisilla could have written it which surprised me given how sexist the church is. But my parents' church will also misrepresent the information to make it seem like these issues are still being debated on by scholars but reassures us that the liberal scholars are losing with their evil anti-supernatural bias. I don't think they're being intentionally dishonest but they are being fooled by the apologetics and are lacking in any criticial thinking skills, so their gullibility makes them more easier to fool.

 

Exactly. They don't even want to try and educate people.

 

 

The ministry isn't a professorship. It is much more like being a kindergarten teacher.

 

When I stared preaching, I went into the nitty gritty of every thing I knew, and looked out upon a sea (a pond really) of glassy eyes. I started a practice of giving childrens' sermonettes and noticed an odd thing. The whole congregation actually paid attention. From then on I preached as if I were talking to children who thought they were adults. The popularity of my sermons gained a good deal of ground.

 

Yes I knew church history, but you couldn't give it away with a premium of a full tank of gas. A self selected few, like yourself, wanted to know. But for the many 2 kinds of sermons worked in the Church of Christ: 1.Simple warm fuzzies. 2. We have the correct doctrine and Episcopalians don't.

 

Since the Episcopal church appeals to a more learned individual, maybe the priest can slather on the knowledge, but I have my doubts.

 

Don't defend the lying SOBs. Come on, you know they are afraid or unwilling to tell the truth because then they'd be out of a job and that's for starters.

 

Yes, the Episcopal Church does appeal to a more learned group of people- Drs, Scientists, attorneys, psychologists, etc and they do divulge a whole lot more than Fundamngelicals ever did. I wanted to know and I insisted on knowing what was up with all the similarities between the myths. I got to learn and all I saw was a bunch of people lying to the masses, just so they could have a job, as well as control people, as they told them a bunch of fairy tales to keep them pacified.

[chefranden]

Don't defend the lying SOBs. Come on, you know they are afraid or unwilling to tell the truth because then they'd be out of a job and that's for starters.

 

I'm not trying to defend them necessarily.

 

1. I like to start arguments, and this is the Lion's Den.

 

2. I like to poke holes in dogmatic assertions no matter who makes 'em.

 

3.

Lie \Lie\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to D. leugen, OHG. lugi, G. l["u]ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. & Sw. l["o]gn, Goth. liugn. See Lie to utter a falsehood.]

 

1. A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive. [1913 Webster]

 

The proper notion of a lie is an endeavoring to deceive another by signifying that to him as true, which we ourselves think not to be so. --S. Clarke. [1913 Webster]

 

It is willful deceit that makes a lie. A man may act a lie, as by pointing his finger in a wrong direction when a traveler inquires of him his road. --Paley. [1913 Webster]

 

2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden. [1913 Webster]

 

3. Anything which misleads or disappoints. [1913 Webster]

 

Wishing this lie of life was o'er. --Trench. [1913 Webster]

 

To give the lie to.

a. To charge with falsehood; as, the man gave him the lie.

b. To reveal to be false; as, a man's actions may give the lie to his words.

 

White lie, a euphemism for such lies as one finds it convenient to tell, and excuses himself for telling. [1913 Webster]

 

Syn: Untruth; falsehood; fiction; deception.

 

Usage: Lie, Untruth. A man may state what is untrue from ignorance or misconception; hence, to impute an untruth to one is not necessarily the same as charging him with a lie. Every lie is an untruth, but not every untruth is a lie. Cf. Falsity. [1913 Webster]

 

4. From my experience I assume that the vast majority of clergy are not by definition liars. That is they don't personally believe that their version of Christianity is bullshit but teach it anyway.

 

What is said from the pulpit may not be factual, but that is not the same thing as a lie.

[RationalOkie]

This is an interesting debate. Do these church leaders know the truth and lie to themselves? Do they simply not know the truth at all? Let's take a look at some of the most prominent church leaders:

 

1) Joel Osteen {a.k.a. 'Shiny Happy Preacher'} - My guess, he believes most of what he's saying but privately has his doubts. Preaches how their god wants them all to prosper in financial wealth and other blessings. Then he asks them for their money. Reasonably nice guy and I would have a beer with him.

 

2) Benny Hinn {a.k.a. 'False Profit' mi$pelling intentional} - Tough one...Not really, he's a complete turd and knows that he's a lying sack of shit. But, he's rich...so who's the idiot here him or us? If there were an actual ‘holy spirit’ it would have killed this mother-f**ker a long time ago.

 

3) John Hagee {a.k.a. 'The Original Fat Bastard'} - Hagee does not believe in a human peace for Israel and sees any attempt at peace as conspiracy with the Antichrist. Antichrist = Obama or Clinton or Someone French he’s not sure, but the point is peace is out of the question.

 

In my opinion, thanks for asking, it really depends upon whether you are an evangelic or not. The extreme fundies like Hagee have to really believe this shit. After all, some of them handle snakes mistakenly thinking that Mark 16:17-18 is 1) legitimate scripture which all of us know it's not and 2) this is something that their god wants them to do.

 

Now let's be honest with each other, everyone here knows that there aren't too many highly educated people in these snake handling meetings. These evangelic ministers thrive on ignorance. The ignorance his/her flock has of scripture, history, and science. If your flock doesn't know enough to have any cognitive dissonance then it isn't really a factor what you say to them, they will probably believe it.

 

Hence, the more intelligent flocks are probably in the more ceremonial religious sects. They are still being lied to but they aren’t being asked to do much proselytizing. I would guess most of these ceremonial religious priests ARE more intelligent and DO know the truth, or at least some of it.

[Antlerman]

Interesting discussion about whether preachers are lying to their flocks. I agree with Chef that they aren't - with the exception of a few. What qualifies as lying in this context is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. That someone may parrot a pile of ill-founded, or misinformed rhetoric is simply a matter of being careless and irresponsible in their positions as leaders. But there are those who specifically stretch truth, distort it, and outright misrepresent it (Creationists), in order to make themselves right. Those I condemn as lairs. Most people are prone to being duped because they are ignorant and not well motivated to do the hard work of making their religious beliefs work with the new data, and so emotionally just become vehicles of propaganda for their most vocal political voices of their camps.

 

As far as the liberal churches, that's an entirely different matter. They generally are more open to other points of view and what critical scholarship reveals and try to find a way to fit their beliefs into that, rather than the other way around. Speaking to the congregation about God is not any misrepresentation of facts, as that is a religious belief and that is what they are sharing sincerely. If someone doesn't believe in God, they can't say that the preacher is speaking a lie, because to him, that is what he believes. He is speaking the truth about his beliefs.

 

My distaste for Evangelicals is that the closed-minded approach they take makes it near-impossible for there to be any meaningful dialog. It is the elevation and purchase of a mythic-membership at the expense of intellectual, spiritual, and social integrity. It is the seeking of salvation through group identity bought by rejecting this world, not through finding the means in which to embrace and value it; to be a part of making it beautiful. Theirs is a spiritual pathology. In this sense, on an existential level, I would say they are living insincere lives. They are not living true to their hearts and minds.

[Mriana]

Don't defend the lying SOBs. Come on, you know they are afraid or unwilling to tell the truth because then they'd be out of a job and that's for starters.

 

I'm not trying to defend them necessarily.

 

1. I like to start arguments, and this is the Lion's Den.

 

2. I like to poke holes in dogmatic assertions no matter who makes 'em.

 

3.

Lie \Lie\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to D. leugen, OHG. lugi, G. l["u]ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. & Sw. l["o]gn, Goth. liugn. See Lie to utter a falsehood.]

 

1. A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive. [1913 Webster]

 

The proper notion of a lie is an endeavoring to deceive another by signifying that to him as true, which we ourselves think not to be so. --S. Clarke. [1913 Webster]

 

It is willful deceit that makes a lie. A man may act a lie, as by pointing his finger in a wrong direction when a traveler inquires of him his road. --Paley. [1913 Webster]

 

2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden. [1913 Webster]

 

3. Anything which misleads or disappoints. [1913 Webster]

 

Wishing this lie of life was o'er. --Trench. [1913 Webster]

 

To give the lie to.

a. To charge with falsehood; as, the man gave him the lie.

b. To reveal to be false; as, a man's actions may give the lie to his words.

 

White lie, a euphemism for such lies as one finds it convenient to tell, and excuses himself for telling. [1913 Webster]

 

Syn: Untruth; falsehood; fiction; deception.

 

Usage: Lie, Untruth. A man may state what is untrue from ignorance or misconception; hence, to impute an untruth to one is not necessarily the same as charging him with a lie. Every lie is an untruth, but not every untruth is a lie. Cf. Falsity. [1913 Webster]

 

4. From my experience I assume that the vast majority of clergy are not by definition liars. That is they don't personally believe that their version of Christianity is bullshit but teach it anyway.

 

What is said from the pulpit may not be factual, but that is not the same thing as a lie.

 

IMO they do practice to deceive, control, and manipulate and it has been going on for centuries. I am not convinced that they aren't being deceitful and I think you know they are being deceitful too.