Guess when “God” is involved it is OK to violate China’s rules, by lying on your visa application to enter the country. That is arrogant…thinking that they are above China’s laws. They deserve to be tossed out of the country. Franklin Graham has more sense than to try and convert illegally. Smart man. Not so sure about the Southern Baptists…

I agree with Rev. F. Graham, too. What good are the ten commandments if you don’t follow them? It’s as though they make their own laws, and then say it is o.k. because we’re doing it for God. Laws are to be obeyed, God’s and Mans, you find that in the Bible telling you to do that. The extreme religions are arrogant in pushing people to be saved, always saved. God finds his own, and people do not have to be hit over the head with their exuberance. I hope the Chinese realize that all Christian people are not like the law breakers with plots.

They are above China’s laws. Christianity has always taught that laws that interfere with following God’s laws are mean to be violated. And I’d want to see that idea expanded to include any law that is needlessly oppressive and interferes with the exercise of basic human freedoms: such laws have no authority and don’t need to be heeded. No one should break the laws and not expect to suffer the consequences, but they have no reason to actually respect those laws, either.
You liberals baffle me.

Nate W:
“They are above China’s laws.” Wow! That is the height of arrogance.
So you are saying it was OK for the ultra Christians to lie on their Visa’s when they came into China? Do you feel it is OK for the radical Muslims who have come into the U.S. to lie on their applications, saying they were going to attend school? That was a lie, and was that worse then the missionaries saying they were in sports or cultural pursuits to China?
Tell the Chinese that they don’t have to obey their laws.

Pagansister,
you asked: “So you are saying it was OK for the ultra Christians to lie on their Visa’s when they came into China? ”
the word of the day is JUSTIFICATION.
it’s used all the time. i agree with you in that i view it as the height of arrogance.
the Pagan word of the day is CONSEQUENCES. they think they have the right to “share” the gospel, China has the right to throw their butts in jail. for political reasons, China had them leave, which is something they didn’t have to do. a person goes into another country and breaks their laws, whether or not it is agreed to or goes under false pretenses, they suffer the consequences. Isn’t there something in their 10 commandments about lying or bearing false witness? I can’t say i’d be sorry for such. If they insist on proselytizing, then they’ll have to deal with the consequences.

Pagansister,
Yes, it’s fine for “ultra Christians” (whatever that means) to break the law in order to get into a country to do missionary work there. Yes, it’s fine for radical Muslims to break U.S. law to enter the country and do what they call Allah’s work here. Yes, it’s fine for a Chinese person to violate any Chinese law that is unduly oppressive or deeply violates their consciences. Yes, it’s fine for an abortion doctor in a country where abortion is illegal to violate the law in order to help a woman get an abortion. Yes, it’s fine for a Nazi-era German to break the law and hide a Jew. Yes, yes, yes, it is always right, everywhere and in every circumstance, to violate a law that one believes to be profoundly unjust if violating that law is necessary to bring about what one feels to be true justice. That’s not to say that people shouldn’t expect to face the consequences of their actions, but moral conscience should always be above the law of any country.

So Nate it’s o.k. for anyone to violate “your” Constitutional Rights if their moral conscience tells them you are wrong? Laws are made to be obeyed and it isn’t right to break them. I imagine the Chinese couldn’t possibly have identified all the lying Southeran Baptists running around Bajing, after the fact, but if they could have they would have been in jail at this moment. I don’t think our Lord would sanction this kind of behavior. My father-in-law was a Medical Missionary and his wife a nurse in the 30′s and set up a church, He was also a minister, and hospital in Sierra Leone, and he did it legally. I also remember at that time they were Baptists.

Henrietta,
First of all, I’m not sure whose rights are being violated by breaking a law that itself violates some seemingly fundamental human rights (right to free dissemination of ideas, right to free practice of religion). But yes, it is okay for anyone to break any law–even a law that I like, even a law that protects my interests–if that law interferes with the practice of what they perceive to be moral duties. Your position seems completely incoherent, as if you’re saying that we have a moral duty to abandon all our moral duties if some human law says we can’t practice them. It’s like a person saying, “I’ve got a moral responsibility to protect this Jew from the gas chambers, but if the Nazi law says I can’t, then God wants me to obey that law.” That’s pure rubbish.
In some places in some times, it has been illegal for anyone to spread their religious faith to anyone else, or even to be of a certain religious faith. So if a government were to make it illegal to believe in the Christian God, the Christian God would want us to just stop believing in Him? And we Christians are to obey the Christian God’s wish that we follow the law by not believing in Him and not obeying His wishes?
Your position quickly descends into pure silliness. Yes, it is okay for people to break the law when they perceive the law to be preventing them from exercising a fundamental moral duty. I can’t fathom how anyone could deny that and still claim to have the slightest clue what morality is.

Then Nate, if all man made laws are useless, what’s the point in any laws? Just let chaos take over…murder when you want, steal when you want,after all, if someone is preventing you from doing your moral duty by not letting you do something or have something you want, then you can kill him/her or steal from them etc. Interesting logic.
“When in Rome do as the Roman’s do”. That means if you are a guest in a country, you should have the good sense to follow their laws. The Bible pushers knowingly broke the law in China. They are lucky they didn’t end up in jail. They might have had it not been during the Olympics. Then of course, I guess they’d be heros to the other Bible pushers. Whatever. A person who knowingly takes drugs into some countries shouldn’t be surprised if they end up in that country’s jail, and the US government says..sorry Charlie…you broke their law..you’re on your own. China isn’t everyones idea of a great place, but that doesn’t mean someone goes into it with the idea that they are better and can pass out illegal literature.
Passing out Bibles has nothing to do with Nazi Germany, BTW. No one is hurt by them NOT passing out those books.

Pagansister,
Passing out Bibles has everything to do with Nazi Germany. To someone who believes in a moral, divinely-ordained duty to spread a religious message and who believes in the critical importance of hearing and embracing that message, yes, someone is being hurt by any idiotic and oppressive law that bans the free dissemination of ideas and the free practice of religion. I assume you’d say it’s fine to violate Nazi law, because you believe Nazi law is severely unjust. If you’re going to say that, however, you’ve got to make the same concession for anyone else who finds any particular law gravely unjust and prohibitive of the practice of one’s basic moral duties.
I mean, if you could dismiss Nazi laws, then you obviously don’t believe that we have an absolute obligation to follow human-made laws, so to turn around and blast someone else for breaking the law qua breaking the law is inconsistent and downright hypocritical. You may disagree with them about the justice of that particular law, and you may hold that their perceived moral duty is not a moral duty at all, but that’s not to say that their sin lies in nothing other than breaking the law, and that breaking the law is always immoral. That would commit you to following Nazi law had you been alive in Nazi-era Germany. There’s no way around that.
I’ve never once said that human laws are worthless. Human laws maintain social order and punish evil. For the most part, they do this fairly well. But just because law has a purpose doesn’t mean it’s always right, and it doesn’t mean we always have to follow it even when it’s gravely wrong. To do so would be to surrender one’s status as a free moral agent, to deliver one’s conscience entirely into the hands of others.
If someone believes the law is violated justice and interfering with basic moral duties, then I’m going to expect that person to break the law, even if I disagree with their conception of justice and morality. If I disagree with that person’s sense of justice, I may want them caught and tried, but I’ll have more respect for them if they violate the law in good conscience than if they follow it do something they consider immoral because of it.

“So if a government were to make it illegal to believe in the Christian God, the Christian God would want us to just stop believing in Him?”
Absolutely. And if a government were to make it illegal to believe in the Easter Bunny, the Easter Bunny would want us to just stop believing in Him, too. Imaginary beings are like that.
So you compare Nazi law, such as led to the Holocaust, with a law against passing out Bibles? Arrogance, thy name is Christian. In fact there’s a big difference in the morality those laws represent and I’d hope even you could see that. But I suppose you also think anyone who believes abortion is murder, like you say you do, should try to assassinate people who have and perform abortions. And perhaps you applaud those terrorists and hope they escape.

You appear to lack basic reading comprehension skills, nnmns. I’m not comparing the morality of any laws. It should be pretty clear by now that we’re talking about the principle of breaking laws that violate one’s conscience, not whether or how much my own conscience is violated by any particular law.
And you know, it’s kind of hard for a borderline pacifist like myself to advocate murdering people who have abortions, whether I think abortion itself is murder or not.

Nate your civility is pretty nearly gone these last few days. I hope you can get a little vacation before school starts.
My point was that laws against distributing Bibles are not nearly as seriously wrong as (what you brought up) laws that led to the Holocaust. (Can we agree on that?) So to compare breaking the one out of conscience to breaking the other out of conscience is a false comparison.

ditto to your last post, nnmns.

And my point was that your point is totally irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what you or I think about how bans on proselytizing compare with Nazi Germany’s laws, because I’ve clearly stated that that isn’t the issue. The issue is whether or not one should violate the law when one prohibits one from practicing what one considers to be a basic moral duty. To some people, freely practicing and sharing one’s religious beliefs is a basic moral duty–you and I may or may not agree, but that’s irrelevant, because that’s not what we’re talking about–and in that case, we should expect nothing else but that they should break the law. Why shouldn’t they? Why shouldn’t someone break the law if they feel the law violates their human dignity by interfering with one of their most basic moral duties? The ONLY argument you can make is that their perceived duties really aren’t all that important, which is the one you’re trying to make, but that’s a different debate altogether.
My point is an always has been that we shouldn’t be scandalized when someone breaks a law that harms their conscience. We should expect it. If you don’t expect it, then you don’t really understand the mindset of the people breaking the law.

Well if these folks find one of their higher moral duties is to inflict their religion on others their senses of morality are damaged and I shall not be concerned if they spend time in jail because it will just make them feel morally superior. And if they work it right they can get a lot of money from others with impaired moralities who have better things to do than galavant around with Bibles.

I love the term “ultra Christians” I want to be one of them, but alas I am content to be just Christian. What is going on behind the Great Wall is shameful and anyone supporting China trying to keep out the truth of the Gospel is just as guilty as China in its murderous ways toward its many Chinese Christians in that country. When bringing up the Ten Commandments you ought to cite murder on the part of China as it murders many of its own people for believing in Christ. So you think that’s okay too? I am floored by liberal intent toward Christians that the death of Christians is just fine with them as long as they get another group on their side against Christians.
I think the plan to enter China is brilliant and I would have loved to be a part of it. I would be content to praise God from a Chinese jail. If you know what it is like to be a Chinese citizen and be persecuted or even murdered for your belief and not feel something then I wonder just what are you made of.

Oh yeah Franklin Graham is not by a long shot his dad, its hard to see that they are made of the same stuff.

I don’t agree with some of the things conservative Christians believe, but here in the U.S., the same freedom of religion that protects Christianity protects everything else (well it’s supposed to anyway). It’s difficult to see religious persecution in other countries and not want to reach out. Plus I’m sympathetic to the notion of being willing to oppose laws that are by their nature unjust, and being willing to face the consequences for integrity’s sake (Dr. King put it better than I ever could in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”). I can think of a few laws that I certainly hope I would not simply accept if they were ever passed.
The problem for me is that they lied about why they were there. It’s likely they wouldn’t have gotten in if they hadn’t, but is it really okay to use deceit to spread a faith that opposes, among other things, dishonesty? Wouldn’t it send a better message if they had just said “while we don’t agree with the decision of the Chinese government, we’re going to respect it”? That might have made a good impression, or at least a better one than simply trying to cheat the system. Better yet, they could have gone for the reasons they said they were going, and who knows? Maybe an opportunity would have presented itself.

Mordred08,
I’m not so sure that Christianity opposes deception in every form or in every circumstance. Their are instances of deception within the Bible that are themselves praised as being instrumental in Israel’s history (Rahab’s hiding of the spies is one example). A Christian confronting a situation like China is faced with a decision: is a rigid interpretation of commandments not to lie (which are never so simply worded as “Thou shalt not lie”) or the Great Commission to preach to all nations more fundamental? Those who believe they have a duty to share the Gospel with the whole world are likely to feel that situations like this are among the examples of when deception is not necessarily a sin.
How exactly would they have made a better impression had they not tried to get into China? They would have made no impression, because they wouldn’t have done anything. No one anywhere would have looked at the nothing that was done and thought, “Wow, those Christians sure are admirable for doing nothing; I think I’ll convert.”

The problem with what the Sou. Baptists did was exactly what Morered8 said, it wasn’t honest, and honesty is a hallmark of Christianity, or should be. I resent as another christian that they have represented my religion as an embarassment to Christians who think and worship as I do. They do not trump us in beliefs. They are American Fundamentalists who have been brought up with our freedom to do and say what they please, when they please, and to whoever they please. That may be fine in America, but not another country who have different laws then we have. It was blatant disrespect and did not show good sportsmanship, that ironically was what they hid behind.

Henrietta,
Why should they have respected a law that they believed to be a violation of the fundamental human rights of free speech and the free practice of religion? God has never told us anywhere–not in the Bible, not in the patristic tradition, nowhere–that we are supposed to respect laws that are in direct contradiction to God’s own laws.
Frankly, I find it embarrassing that someone who claims to be a Christian will vocally defend laws that prohibit Christians (and Buddhists and others) from doing the things that they believe their religion commands them to do, things that have been part of their religion for centuries. Their deception may or may not have been the best approach, but the whole issue of “disrespect” towards Chinese law should not be an issue at all. The early Christians showed tremendous disrespect for their own governments and the governments of those they proselytized, and their example holds a lot more theological weight than your unfounded, unreasonable desire to give perverted Chinese law some kind of divine authority.

NateW, you claim that the Commandment “thou shall not lie” was never that simple. Does it read, thou shall not lie EXCEPT when it we want to get into a country that prohibits our preaching, or EXCEPT when it is convenient to do so? Changes with the circumstances? Interesting. What’s the point of that particular commandment if it is altered to meet circumstances. Of course, wars have kind of “killed” off the “thou shall not kill” commandment. The Big 10 are good guide lines, and make sense but are altered easily (as has been proven over and over).

Nate W. Of course I know about China’s history, like most everyone else does in these postings. China is a growing and changing country and they will eventually become more democratic in the way they view their lives, because the Chinese people in their country will work towards this result. The worlds governments will work these problems out, not extremist groups, be they religious or otherwise. The Bible states we are to obey Mans laws, as well as Gods laws. If you don’t like Mans laws, at least in this country, you can go about changing them legally, not decide to become a vigilante and take the law into your own hands. Why should they then feel that they can take the law into their hands in another country? This is extremist behavior.
By the way, you consider yourself an academic, and you probably are, but I have been in classes with many academia, and they have never inferred to me that I’m only “claiming” to be a Christian, kick me on whatever bothers you the most, but don’t ever presume to imply I’m only pretending to be a Christian.

BTW, NateW., Henrietta is a great example of what it means to be a Christian. That is displayed in her posts continuously.
It seems that you feel it is OK to break a country’s laws for religious purposes. Hope there is some discrimiation as to just which laws you break. BTW, just what makes Christianity any better than other religions? I don’t think the Buddhist’s would agree it was better or others in China. No religion IMO trumps any other. The Chinese government isn’t interested in having religions in their country and perhaps someday they will stop being afraid of it. However it certainly doesn’t help to go into China, breaking the current rules. Passing out Bibles etc. in secret just makes the government even more determined to continue with the crackdown. Russia finally has allowed the Orthodox to worship again as well as other denominations. Time will evenutally get around to China. Then some might choose to be Christian and some may not…they may think it’s all bunk. But when the time of freedom hits China, the folks will have a choice. The more the Bible pushers push, the harder the government will clamp down…as they are inforcing their laws. I think those that are pushing their religion, trying to make “converts” will delay the time when the government decides to allow freedom to worship or not, as a person chooses.

Pagansister,
The commandment reads “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Jesus also has some comments about honesty in oath-taking. Neither of these examples is as simple as saying “Thou shalt not lie,” as if one is required to speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth in any and every circumstance one could possibly encounter. Like I said before, the same people who built their society around the Ten Commandments also proudly told their legends like the one about Rahab using deception to hide the Israelite spies and help bring down the walls of Jericho. It’s not that there are exceptions to the commandment, it’s that there is no simple “do not lie” commandment to begin with. That means that the place of dishonesty within Christian morality is open to interpretation, and in the case like the one under discussion, it is especially so: Christian’s duty to bear witness to the Truth has come into conflict with speaking the whole truth about their intentions in China.
Henrietta,
I don’t attack people for disagreeing with me. I become very frustrated when 1) you and others here constantly attack anything that even remotely resembles conservative or traditional Christianity, and 2) when you refuse to actually address the arguments I make. Here you haven’t addressed any of the arguments I’ve made, and that’s playing into your attempt to smear the reputation of your fellow Christians who are trying to spread the Gospel that you claim to believe in.
According to you, resisting the Nazis was extremist behavior. According to you, anyone who ever broke any law in the civil rights movement was guilty of extremist behavior. According to you, most of the early Christians were guilty of extremist behavior by the mere fact that they were Christians. If breaking the law in order to follow what one believes is a fundamental moral duty is always immoral “extremist behavior,” then it’s always immoral. It’s always against God’s will. That means that in a country that outlaws Christianity, it’s against God’s will to be a Christian.
You’ve failed to address that argument. Instead, you’re repeated this strange idea that the Bible says we’re supposed to follow human laws EVEN WHEN THOSE LAWS CONTRADICT GOD’S LAWS. That simply doesn’t make any conceptual theological sense. Not only does the Bible not state that (show me where it does), but it’s inherently absurd. When God’s commands and a corrupt government’s commands come into conflict, you can only follow one. For some reason, with no textual support behind you, you’ve opted to give admittedly corrupt human commands precedence over God’s commands. Why? Why should we have to kill, rob, torture, enslave, or blaspheme just because a human government says so? Do you really think God’s MOST urgent command is to obey human laws in all circumstances, no matter what the consequences?
And I’m not implying that you aren’t a Christian. You claim to be a Christian, do you not? You shouldn’t be offended when I say you claim to be a Christian. But if you claim to be a Christian, it seems that you ought to be placing God’s laws over human-made ones.

So Nate W.,basicly, it is follow the 10 ” suggestions”, not commandments, if you are Christian. It’s OK to not follow those suggestions if it is inconvenient, or if someone wants to “spread the word” through the “Good Book”.

Pagansister,
no, it’s not 10 suggestions, it’s 10 commandments. But as I clearly stated, the commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbour” is not the same as “Thou shalt not lie, for any reason, under any circumstance, no matter what the consequences.” The former is about slandering your neighbor (probably originally referring to a legal setting), and the latter is clearly much, much broader than that. The former is a real commandment in the Bible, and the latter is not.
And I’m not sure what you’re whol discussion about one religion “trumping” others has to do with anything. That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the freedom of religious believers to share their faith, and the freedom of the listeners to follow the faith that seems most convincing to them, or to follow none at all. As far as I know, this is about as basic a human right as they come–the freedom of conscience, a foundational freedom–and the grossly corrupt Chinese government will not grant it to their citizens or to visitors to the country.
I have absolutely no idea WHY you’re defending the wishes of a government that is intent on violating basic human rights. And don’t dare bring up the example of Russia. As an Orthodox believer myself, I feel it in my own flesh when Russian believers recount how the Church constantly broke Soviet law, and they risked their lives and the future of Christianity in Russia by doing so. And they fled to places like France, and they enlisted the help of believers from France and other countries to come and help them break their stupid, evil laws. They set up undergound seminaries, underground publishing houses, underground churches, and they broke the law every single day. How dare you or Henrietta or anyone else who thinks they know what it means to be a Christian under tyranny slander their good names with all your hogwash about respecting the wishes of tyrannies!
I know you despise any version of Christianity that doesn’t fit your liberal ideal, but thankfully, most Christians aren’t liberals. Most Christians simply aren’t going to play by your rules, and rightfully so.

So if a Christian says something that’s not about his or her neighbor there’s nothing about Christianity that would require them to tell the truth.
In other words an atheist is at least as believable (and in discussions on religion quite likely more so) than a Christian.
No surprise to me, but thanks for verifying it.

Ps we know you don’t despise anyone, and you have a right to your comments, as well as we all do. Please do not let anyone keep you from your free speech.

nnmns,
Except that that’s not at all what I said. It’s not as if the whole of Christian practice is meant to be derived from the Ten Commandments.
Yes, Christianity is a religion deeply committed to truth. The whole of the religion is about bearing witness to Truth in flesh, Jesus Christ. But apparently you have problems imagining circumstances in which moral duties collide, and which dishonesty might better serve truth than full honesty.
In other words, at least a Christian can be counted on to hide a Jew from the Nazis, but the atheist is going to spill everything he knows as soon as the Gestapo asks him to. No surprise to me, but thanks for verifying it.

Nate since Germany was mostly Christian if “a Christian can be counted on to hide a Jew from the Nazis” there should not have been any German Jews killed in the Holocaust. So much for that theory. Actually isn’t denying there any Jews in the house to a Nazi at the door bearing false witness about a neighbor? So the better Christians broke that commandment, thank goodness.
“the atheist is going to spill everything he knows as soon as the Gestapo asks him to” Some would, some wouldn’t. Much like Christians.
“Yes, Christianity is a religion deeply committed to truth. The whole of the religion is about bearing witness to Truth in flesh, Jesus Christ. But apparently you have problems imagining circumstances in which moral duties collide, and which dishonesty might better serve truth than full honesty.”
You think there’s truth in JC but you have no proof of that. So more accurately Christianity is committed to spreading its little hypotheses about Jesus Christ and will lie if need be to accomplish that. I understand why they might do that but let’s be clear many of them will do it. A little bit of truth in advertising, if you please.
I have less problem imagining moral duties collide than you claim or I think have any reason to claim. It’s awkward but not unusual and different people make different choices. I’d lie if necessary to protect people from unjust injury or death, I think. But lying to promote a religion, to me, is a sign you don’t hold truth in very great esteem. And that’s ok as long as we all know it.
As far as lying to protect atheism, the need has never arisen and if it did I’d have to question the atheism. As I’ve said many times before here, if a god existed and did something I couldn’t imagine that e.g. a powerful space alien could do I’d probably start believing in that god. It just hasn’t happened; in fact documented god-like acts have been conspicuously absent. You seem willing to believe in the impossible with no proof, I’m not. Big difference between us.

“Please do not let anyone keep you from your free speech”. Henrietta
Not to worry, Henrietta. Thanks for the back-up. I’m hard to silence!
Simple rule I live by:
Wiccan rede: “An you harm none, do what ye will”.
Covers lying and the 10 Commandments (suggestions) very well.
Personally I don’t see any difference in lying about a neighbor or “bearing false witness “, than lying to get into a country to pass out illegal books.
You have mentioned that some countries stop what are considered human rights. History of those Crusaders, and Catholic ruled England, Spain doesn’t speak well for it’s history. Some countries will insist on having a state run religion…some of the Muslim ones now for instance. Religion can be a problem, and can cause problems. Russia got their total control out of their system after the Wall fell. Maybe not in my lifetime but in the future, China will probably lose the fear of religion and let their people have more freedoms, as they enter the more “modern” world. Their population is huge, and the strictness with which they have to rule, though you may disagree with it, has made it possible for their folks to eat. I’m not defending them, just stating the facts. Right now they are fearful of religion and control worship. That’s life in China now. It doesn’t help to have lying Bible pushers trying to sneak in what is now illegal books. They don’t have the right in China to do that right now. The Chinese folks really aren’t missing anything. The invasion if Iraq and an unnecessary war is what happens when the U.S. tries to tell countries what to do. We didn’t like their government and now our men and women are paying the price for that mistake, as well as the people of Iraq. Bit off topic, but a comparison.
“……..at least a Christian can be counted on to hide a Jew from the Nazis, but the atheist is going to spill everything he knows as soon as the Gestapo asks him to.” NateW.
Really? Interesting theory, IMO really wrong, but interesting.
FYI: I don’t “despise” Christians, or Muslims, or Buddists, or Jews or Hindus or any religion. I don’t even hate them. Rather presumptuous I think. I respect and even love some of the followers of those religions.
Like I have said previously, no religion trumps another. all are equal.

Half your post is irrelevant to the discussion (whether or not Christianity is true, or whether or not Christians will help out a Jew, isn’t what we’re talking about here), so I’ll only address what’s relevant.
“Actually isn’t denying there any Jews in the house to a Nazi at the door bearing false witness about a neighbor?”
The commandment is against bearing false witness AGAINST one’s neighbor, originally referring to legal/courtroom settings. I think that lying about an innocent person’s location to save his or her life is quite a bit different from making false accusations against someone.
“So more accurately Christianity is committed to spreading its little hypotheses about Jesus Christ and will lie if need be to accomplish that…A little bit of truth in advertising, if you please.”
There’s a difference between lying about the message to those you’re preaching to, and lying to an official of a corrupt government in order to avoid fallen victim to unjust laws.
Suppose the natives of some underdeveloped country were all dying from improper sanitation. Suppose that you knew a purifying technique that you could easily teach the natives, but their government, for no noble cause, has banned foreigners teaching the natives about health and sanitation. There’s clearly a moral difference between lying to the border patrol about why you’re coming to the country, and lying to the people once you get into the country.
Christianity is a religion committed to truth, but in an imperfect world, some Christians may sometimes feel the need to lie to the enemies of truth. The Chinese government is a sworn enemy of open speech about matters of truth, so I can understand why someone who has some message to preach–whether it’s about religion, politics, culture, or whatever–may feel their truth-telling duy lies more with the people of China than with their corrupt leaders.
“But lying to promote a religion, to me, is a sign you don’t hold truth in very great esteem.”
You think that because you aren’t religious, and you can’t fully relate to those who take religious ideas seriously. That person wants to witness to their religion illegally doesn’t mean they don’t honor truth as much as you, lying in order to save life, do. It means they have a different understanding of what’s important in life: they think religion is, you don’t.
It’s vital that you correctly identify where exactly you disagree with someone, for the sake of charity, and for the sake of honesty and truth. To automatically accuse someone who is willing to lie for religious reason as dishonoring truth, while excusing your own lies to protect others from bodily harm, is simply dishonest, untruthful, and uncharitable. It’s bearing false witness against your neighbor’s reputation.
And just for fun:
“You seem willing to believe in the impossible with no proof”
Wrong. I am absolutely unwilling to believe anything without sufficient evidence. Again, you’re bearing false witness and being dishonest about where our disagreement lies. Just because we don’t agree about the evidence doesn’t mean that I don’t value evidence just as much as you or anyone else.

“There is a difference in lying about the message to those you are preaching to, and lying to an official of a corrupt government in order to avoid fallen victim to unjust laws.” NateW.
In other words, lying is OK under certain circumstances deemed by the lier. I thought it was just plain wrong. Oh well.

In other words, Pagansister believes it would be just plain wrong to lie to the Nazis if they asked you to reveal the location of some Jews you were hiding. How noble!

NO. Not true.

So then you believe completely contradictory things.
If lying is “just plain wrong,” then it’s just plain wrong to lie in order to protect the life of an innocent person. If you don’t believe that it would be wrong to lie to protect a Jew from a Nazi, then you do not believe that lying is just plain wrong.
So which is it?

We’re discussing lying to get into China, not Nazi Germany. One has nothing to do with the other. You introduced Germany into the discussion, so I’ll leave the other response for you to speculate. (or not).

Nate at 12:48 “at least a Christian can be counted on to hide a Jew from the Nazis”
Nate at 4:00 “whether or not Christians will help out a Jew, isn’t what we’re talking about here”
So it seems we are only talking about what Nate wants to talk about at that instant.
“There’s a difference between lying about the message to those you’re preaching to, and lying to an official of a corrupt government in order to avoid fallen victim to unjust laws.”
Again you are condoning lying to spread Christianity. It seems to my you’d condone such lying whenever it suits your purpose. So I will keep that in mind when we debate. But I always reserve the right to demand documentation so it’s no big deal.
Regarding your natives example, I agree of course. We disagree on what’s important enough to deserve lying to achieve. You think one religion is and I think no religion is, so I’m more trustworthy when we talk about religion. But again I’d expect anyone to check claims either of us made.
I see no point in extending this debate.

Pagansister and nnmns,
There are general principles, and there are specific instances that test those principles. Lying to get into China is a specific instance that we’ve been discussing, but in the course of the conversation, you and others have stated that you think it’s always wrong to lie. That it’s always wrong to lie is a general principle. In case you don’t know, in philosophical sorts of debates, when someone puts forward a general principle, someone else often responds with a specific instance that tests that principle. That’s the entire point of the Nazi example; it’s a test for the principle “Lying is always wrong.” I’m concerned with the Nazi question only insofar as it is a test case for the proposed principle that lying is always “just plain wrong.” I’m struggling to grasp why this is so difficult for you to understand.
Nnmns,
You’d condone lying whenever it suits your purpose, too, if you want to put it so crassly. You just have a different purpose than I do.
How on earth do you get that you’re more trustworthy when we talk about religion? You clearly still do not grasp the distinction between lying to a government authority that’s trying to prevent you from talking about religion, and lying while you’re talking about religion. Suppose we were a couple of young kids, and I was telling you about that R-rated movie we weren’t supposed to see but that I sneaked and watched anyway, and our mom comes and asks us what we’re talking about, and I lie and tell her I’m talking about something else. Does that mean that I’m not trustworthy in what I say when I’m describing movies? No, because I’d be lying to our mom precisely so that I’d be left free to tell you the truth about the movie. Neither does lying to a government I deem to be violating by basic rights of free speech mean that I’m not to be trusted when I’m talking about religion. You can choose not to trust me if you want, but that’s irrational, because the one does not follow from the other.
I see no point in continuing this discussion either, because you’re obviously are not interested in a charitable interpretation of the actions of those who disagree with you.

AT 2:45 this afternoon, Aug. 24, Nate, I responded to a previous post of yours. It was just put in as Spambot pulled it for “review”.

Nate W. People don’t die if they don’t get a Bible…so why lie to get into China to pass out a book that could wait until China changes it’s mind on things religious. People (returning to your favorite topic..but off subject) died if hiding places were given during WWII.
As the Wiccan Rede states: An you harm none,do what ye will. Simple and easy.

Nate you suggest you would not lie in talking about religion, just in order to talk about religion.
Ok, if you are trying to convince someone Christianity is true do you point out that there’s no independent documented evidence for the miracles most Christians consider at the heart of their religion?
Do you admit there are several contradictions in the Bible?
Do you point out that the Bible was written by men and edited by men who all had their own agendas?
Do you point out that there were religions in that part of the world with similar miracle stories earlier than Christianity’s?
And if someone asks you about such things, do you claim they are not true or do you admit they are true?

nnmns actually there is documentation of miracles,
1 Do you mean, “How come I haven’t seen one?”
Many scholars can show why the Bible does not contradict itself
2. Do you mean, “Why can’t I understand it?”
Everyone who has a relationship with Christ knows that the Bible is Divinely Inspired.
3. Do you mean “if I ignore the fact that the Bible is Divinely Inspired by God I can point out the frailties of man and understand what I don’t understand?”
In man’s search for God there has been many similar stories but no story or philosophy has stood the test of time and been so well documented.
4. I’m pretty you mean “I wonder how can people believe so strongly.”
5. nnmns Do you long for a truth?

H22 “Chinese couldn’t possibly have identified all the lying Southeran Baptists running around Bajing, after the fact, but if they could have they would have been in jail at this moment.”
H22 how do you feel about the many Chinese Christians in China’s jails or murdered by China’s military?
How do you feel about black market body parts taken from murdered Chinese Christians and sold everywhere in the world even here?
How do you feel about Chinese Christians who would give just about anything to read the Bible under the threat of death.
How do you feel about the Dutch Christians that lied to protect Jewish people from the Nazi?
Please don’t feel angry about my questions or offended, I mean no offense; you don’t even have to answer them, just think.

Nate you make claim after claim with no justification.
“actually there is documentation of miracles”
Ok give me an example of documentation of Jesus’ return to life written by someone shortly after it is supposed to happen by a non-Christian. Something of the form: “People in Golgotha are claiming a man called Jesus was crucified and came back to life.” Something of a news account or something in the Roman archives. Oh and it should not have come down to us through Christian hands where zealots could have altered or even created it.
“Many scholars can show why the Bible does not contradict itself”
Ok give us their explanations for just these few contradictions:
How many stalls and horsemen?
1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
=====
Who is the father of Joseph? Jacob or Heli?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
=====
Jesus’ last words
MAT 27:46,50: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” …Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”
LUK 23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”
JOH 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”
=====
“Everyone who has a relationship with Christ knows that the Bible is Divinely Inspired”
And had those who imagine a relationship with Christ been born in a Muslim country many of them would be imagining a relationship with Allah.
Anyway the mental condition of some people is no proof they are right.
“no story or philosophy has stood the test of time and been so well documented.”
Actually various religions are older than Christianity. And as I’ve pointed out Christianity isn’t documented in a trustworthy way.
“nnmns Do you long for a truth?”
Actually, yes. I’d love to know the grand unified theory of physics that explains how the universe works. Then I’d like to be smart enough to understand it.
And a recipe that works for cheap energy that doesn’t endanger the earth would be great.
But surrendering my rationality to burrow into someone else’s clearly faulty belief system, no thank you!