Monday, October 23, 2006

Liar Liar Pants on Fire

A few teenage atheists seem bent on continuing to bring up my award winning role as The Discomfiter. I set up The Discomfiter's blog as an apologetic against John Loftus' rather ridiculous claims and arguments (for example, his bird man argument and my gill boy argument). My style here, though, was to use sarcasm and parody to refute Loftus.

During this time an atheist by the name of "Brother Blark" set up a parody of my parody. He went around to various atheists sites and pretended to be a Christian. I quickly dismantled him by coming in under my Discomfiter persona and claiming that I was Brother Blark. The atheists then didn't know what to believe and so they refused to give Brother Blark the time of day; he subsequently shut down his parody blog, which never got off the ground.

Apparently this caused many of the teenage atheists to use these events to call me a "liar for Jesus." All but admitting that they could not engage in an intellectual battle, they turned toward character assassination. The tactic is to say that since I told non-truths I'm not a Christian.

Though this died down for a while, it has recently resurfaced in a number of comment sections as of late. So, due to the prodding of another, I've decided to post on this. I'll offer some brief thoughts first and then post a paper by John Frame.

1. Even if I'm a horrible person (which I am), and I've been violating the 9th commandment, that has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of Christian theism.

2. A popular atheological argument is that God is a liar. So, if one wants to use this argument then how does this same person condemn my lying as "un-Christian?" If one does not like this argument, can he please tell us what's wrong with it in the combox. I'd love to be able to quote an atheists response to this argument to another atheist - more effect that way. ;-)

3. Pointing out sin in another is hardly an argument against Christianity, rather it's a confirmation of our worldview. To the extent that the teenagers have a problem with my lying, they're tacitly accepting biblical categories of anthropology.

4. Apropos (3), what's the problem with lying and deception given evolutionary assumptions, deception is a vital part of survival. So maybe I'm a liar for Mother Nature.

5. There's nothing necessarily sinful with parody, acting, hyperbole, surprise parties, etc.

7. Given the criticisms, I would expect that our teenage atheists are against soldiers camouflaging themselves, trick plays in football, surprise attacks, deceptive defenses in chess, etc.

8. Lastly, they can't provide a non-Christian account for why any form of deception is wrong. And, they show that they're really not serious because they have not come down on "Brother Blark" for his deceptive parody. This shows it's more personal than anything else. Understandable, given that their worldview continually comes out holding the wrong end of the stick.

And lastly I'll post a paper by John Frame.

MUST WE ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH?


John Frame


Must We Always Tell the Truth?
John M. Frame



The third and ninth commandments, especially, commend the truth to us, as do many other teachings of Scripture. God is a God of truth. He doesn’t lie (Tit. 1:2, Heb. 6:17-18, Num. 23:19). He wants us to image him in that as in other ways. Note the biblical polemic against lying in such passages as Psm. 31:18, 63:11, 101:7, 119:29, 163, Prov. 6:17, 12:22, 19:5, 9, Zech. 8:16, Eph. 4:25, 1 John 2:21, Rev. 21:27, 22:15. Satan is the father of lies, John 8:44, and sinners are dominated by lies, Rom. 1:25, 3:8-18, 2 Cor. 4:2-4, 2 Thess. 2:9-12. Scripture condemns false prophets, who tell lies about God, Deut. 13:1-18.

But there are other passages in which people mislead other people without incurring biblical condemnation. Note:

1. Ex. 1:15-21, the Israelite midwives in Egypt.

2. Josh. 2:4-6, 6:17, 25, Heb. 11:31, James 2:25, Rahab’s deception. Note that apart from what Rahab told her countrymen, even hiding the spies amounted to a deception.

3. Josh. 8:3-8, the ambush at Ai. As John Murray recognizes, God himself authorized this deception.

4. Judg. 4:18-21, 5:24-27, Jael and Sisera.

5. 1 Sam. 16:1-5, Samuel misleads Saul as to the reason for his mission.

6. 1 Sam. 19:12-17, Michal deceives her father’s troops.

7. 1 Sam. 20:6, David’s counsel to Jonathan.

8. 1 Sam. 21:13, David feigns madness.

9. 1 Sam. 27:10, David lies to Achish.

10. 2 Sam. 5:22-25, another military deceit.

11. 2 Sam. 15:34, Hushai counseled to lie to Absalom.

12. 2 Sam. 17:19-20, women deceive Absalom’s men.

13. 1 Kings 22:19-23, God sends a lying spirit against Ahab.

14. 2 Kings 16:14-20, Elisha misleads the Syrian troops.

15. Jer. 38:24-28, Jeremiah lies to the princes.

16. Luke 24:28, Jesus acts as if he intends to go further.

17. 2 Thess. 2:11, God sends powerful delusion so that his enemies will believe a lie.

Nevertheless, the predominant view among Reformed Christians is that we should never tell lies under any circumstances. This view was held by Augustine and has more recently been defended by John Murray in Principles of Conduct.

Murray explains the above passages by the following principles: (1) In some of them, such as #2, Scripture commends what the liar accomplished without commending his/her lie. (2) As in #5, it is legitimate to withhold the whole truth from someone, but not to misrepresent. (3) As in #3, we need not always act in ways consistent with the mistaken interpretations of our acts made by others (in this case, the residents of Ai).

The first explanation is inadequate in regard to Rahab, for what Scripture commends is precisely her concealment, her creating a false impression in the minds of the Jericho officials.

As for the second principle, we can grant that it is sometimes right to withhold truth. But the question is whether it is ever right to withhold truth when withholding it may reasonably be expected to create a false impression in someone else’s mind. If it does, as it did in 1 Sam. 16:1-5 and other passages on our list, then it can scarcely be distinguished from lying.

And the third principle depends on a sharp distinction between words that mislead and acts that mislead. Murray is saying in effect that we should never mislead with our words, but we may mislead people by the way we behave. That distinction is not cogent.

And none of these explanations helps us to understand why God himself deceives people in passages #13 and #17.

Charles Hodge says that we are obligated to tell the truth only when there is a “virtual promise.” Essentially, Hodge here is placing the burden of proof on those who wish to require truthfulness. But it is not clear what a virtual promise is, or what the criteria are for concluding that one has or has not been made.

Meredith Kline explains the biblical examples of deception as “intrusion.” In his view, the ethics of the end-times differ from the ethics God has given to us in the law and Jesus’ teaching. In normal times, we are to love our enemies and protect them. But in the end times, the enemies of God will have neither a right to life or a right to truth. Now sometimes, Kline says, the end times enter our present time (and so “intrude”). The intrusion is a time of divine judgment, and, in that time, it is legitimate to kill the opponents of God (as did Joshua and David) and also to withhold truth from them.

Scripture, however, does not distinguish two different ethics. Some of God’s commands (like God’s command to Joshua to kill the Canaanites) are for temporary situations. And Kline is right to say that often those situations are instances of special divine judgments. But capital punishment and just war are also subjects of regular, normative ethics. There are times even in advance of final judgment when the wicked deserve to lose their lives. Perhaps even such “normal capital punishment” can be assimilated to the intrusion model, but if so we need to know that intrusion is a normal part of our ethical life, as limited and defined by God’s revelation.

It does appear that the Bible passages listed above all have to do with the promotion of justice against the wicked who are seeking innocent life. Whether or not we speak of these as intrusions, we should note that in the ninth commandment the requirement to tell the truth is conditioned on a relationship, that of “neighbor.” In context, that relationship is specifically legal. The neighbor is the defendant, and the individual “you” is called to the witness stand, in which he must not lie.

This is not to say that the commandment is limited to legal witness, for many other Bible passages, as we have seen, condemn lying more generally. But in these passages, our obligation to tell the truth is based (as in the ninth commandment) on a relationship. In Eph. 4:25, the relationship is our union with one another in Christ.

Now when one person seeks illegitimately to take the life of another, are the two people neighbors, in the sense of the ninth commandment? The Good Samaritan parable does, indeed, extend the meaning of “neighbor” to all needy people who cross our path. But in the situation where someone is seeking to destroy innocent life, rather than to help and heal, does such a neighborly relation exist? I think not. At least, I doubt that those who misled others in the seventeen passages mentioned earlier were in a neighborly relation to their opponents. Certainly those who deceived in those passages didn’t think so. And I think Scripture concurs in their judgment.

There are also other, more trivial situations where questions of truth enter the discussion. Is it wrong to mislead people as a practical joke? No, if it’s a sort of game that will bring enjoyment; not if it hurts. Is it wrong to engage in the flatteries that are a normal part of social etiquette (“Sincerely yours,” “I had a lovely evening.”)? In my judgment, many of these phrases have come to mean far less than a literal reading of them would indicate. Since everybody knows that, it is not hypocrisy to use them that way.

20 comments:

  1. :::YAWN!!!:::

    Good night, pants on fire.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There's some bored anonymouse that needs to go to sleep instead of reading Triablogue at 8:18 PM

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps a strange thought, but would you be able to build a similar defense if say you killed or raped "for Christ". Based off verses of the bible and interpretation, could a case be made for such things?

    An odd image comes to mind of a righteous Calvinist murderous raping liar in God's grace.

    Just joking around tonight, btw, I thought the discomfiter was great, is the blog archived somewhere?

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, you couldn't. But, you can easily make a case for "murdering and raping for 'Mother Nature.'" :-)

    No, it's not archived anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As has been noted over and over and over again...nearly any activity can be justfied / rationalized by the bible-believing Christian.

    It all depends on how one interprets the sacred text, and those meanings can change based on who is doing the interpreting.

    Ah, but of course, Paul has chosen the CORRECT interpretations, or at least the authors he likes chose properly.

    Or did they?

    Stay tuned for more hand waving, chest beating, and all-around foolishness from your pre-supp comedian of the month.

    Goddess be praised.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No, lying isn't always wrong. Sissela Bok's philosophical work titled Lying is a wonderfully argued book on this topic.

    I do think you crossed the line though, in your attempt to debunk me. It undermines your credibility here at Triablogue, and you can see that reflected in the comments ever since.

    For the record, I do not post anonymously or under a different name, I do not lie to make a point, and I do not knowingly or purposely misrepresent my opponent's views to ridicule them. I think you should follow my example, being the "unprincipled godless heathen" that I am with "no moral convinctions whatsoever."

    Since Pastor Gene Cook aired your interview at the Atheist Hour, will he now admit he knew what you were doing and let his audience know too, so that they can be fully informed to assess his credibility?

    ReplyDelete
  7. If there's no problem with lying, what are you whining about? Who cares that you post under your real name when you're a liar, yet you make a big deal about Manata making a parody under a pseudonym. Is this all you got? Give it a rest, dude....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous, is that YOU Manata?

    See, once he admits he does it, then it calls into question every anonymous post here at Triablogue. We simply no longer know whether it's Manata defending himself. And that's the whole reason I don't do it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I can reveal the shocking truth. John Loftus is in fact a synthetic human, grown in a vat and equipped with fake memories. The people who he thinks are old friends, even family, are in fact either other synthetic humans or agents of a massive conspiracy to cause World War three.

    And how do I know this, because I, Monty Bristow, alias the Disturber, created him! Like thousands of others, his role is to destablise society to the point where collapse is inevitable!

    Ask yourself this, how many people are there who regularly contradict themselves, who have a mission to spread confusion, discord...

    How many of them are the creations of I, MontyBristow, supervillain.

    Bwahahahahahaha!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bristow! Your evil will not go unpunished!

    ReplyDelete
  11. :::YAWN!!!::

    Green Man, you're a chump.

    ReplyDelete
  12. He he. John Frame fails to take into account Luke 24:28 (item No. 16 on the list) when he says, ”all have to do with the promotion of justice against the wicked who are seeking innocent life” and “I doubt that those who misled others in the seventeen passages mentioned earlier were in a neighborly relation to their opponents.” (emphasis added.)

    A few points on what you have written, and then a comment.

    Paul Manata: 1. Even if I'm a horrible person (which I am), and I've been violating the 9th commandment, that has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of Christian theism. (Emphasis in original)

    Not exactly accurate. See, one of the claims of Christian theism is that God has the ability to change believers. They will become “new creatures.” Different. To make the claim that you are acting just like every other human flies in the face of this very basic tenet of Christianity.

    Granted, if Christian theism solely stated that God came in the flesh, then how a believer acts or does not act has no impact on that bare statement. But there is more, isn’t there? That the fact a person believes in Christ will have an effect on their life, making them different than non-believers. Not the same.

    We only have to look at Eph. 4:20-25 which says you have put off your old man, and its conduct, and put on a new man. What does that last verse say? Evidence of this new man is to “put away lying” and speak truth to your neighbor.

    Or Gal. 5:18-26 which says Christians will not act a certain way (selfish ambition, dissentions) but rather will be different. Col. 3:9-10 says by putting on the new man, you should not lie to one another. Rom. 1:29 says unbelievers (NOT believers) are full of deceit. See also 1 Peter 2:1. Rev. 21:8 says liars will not enter heaven.

    John 13:35 says that we will all know who a disciple of Jesus is by their action of love. Matt. 5:46-47 and Luke 6:33-34 says that Christians will act differently, and most definitely NOT the same as non-believers.

    I would say the fact we cannot tell the difference between a non-believer and a believer, especially in light of the defense of “You do it too!” stabs at a very basic foundation of Christianity. God should change lives, not make them indistinguishable from non-God-changed-lives.

    More: 2. A popular atheological argument is that God is a liar. So, if one wants to use this argument then how does this same person condemn my lying as "un-Christian?" If one does not like this argument, can he please tell us what's wrong with it in the combox. I'd love to be able to quote an atheists response to this argument to another atheist - more effect that way. ;-)

    Actually, from my standpoint, I would more clearly state that the Christian God is derived from a variety of human viewpoints, some of which would indicate that this God concept has no problem with deceiving others. Making any claims the humans allege it makes unverifiable and not credible.

    Simply put, if the humans created a God that can lie, we cannot know when such a God is telling the truth.

    Secondly, since there is no God, there is no indwelling of any Holy spirit, no “new creature,” no enlivening of the soul. All we have are humans that aspire to conform to a certain set of morals which they entitle “Christian.” We look at that set of morals. If the person does not conform to them, we question whether it was a breach of the morals, or if the person will justify it by carving out an exception.

    If, Paul Manata, you are claiming that the Christian God concept you embrace allows lying, then no—you are not “un-Christian.” Just not credible. For how can we trust someone that believes lying is justified when discussing with non-believers? We are left verifying everything you say, which becomes tedious and we eventually abandon bothering.

    Finally, a comment on the (never-ending) saga of “The Discomfiter.”

    Now you state that you (as The Discomfiter) posted as the atheist Brother Blark, who created a parody of your parody, in order to “dismantle” him. You indicate he was an atheist pretending to be a Christian.

    Curious…that name. “Blark.”

    Both The Discomfiter and Blark apparently appeared about the same time. Both disappeared about the same time. We no longer have either blog to review. The evidence has been wiped, as it were.

    So…we have a Christian (Paul Manata) posing as an atheist (The Discomfiter) as a parody of another atheist (John W. Loftus.) We then get an atheist (Blark) posing as a Christian (Blark) in order to parody the Christian (Paul Manata) posing as an atheist (The Discomfiter). So the Christian (Paul Manata) posing as an atheist (The Discomfiter) poses as an atheist (Blark) posing as a Christian, in order to dismantle him.

    Now where have I heard that name before? “Blark…Blark…Blark” *snaps fingers* I remember a “Blark” that once posted on IIDB who was an ardent TAG supporter and a pre-supposionalist. Recently, James Lazarus recently indicated that it was you—Paul Manata—that posted under the moniker of “Blark.” (The account has since been deleted, but a search for “Blark” brings up numerous hits.)

    That is far too much insider information to be pure coincidence. You, cloaked under the name of “The Discomfiter,” begin a parody. No one knows who it is. Daniel Morgan asks straight-up “Are you Paul Manata?” and you say “No.” An atheist decides to make a parody of you, and, not knowing it is Paul Manata happens on the moniker of “Blark” which, again unbeknownst to most is a deleted moniker of Paul Manata on another forum.

    I suspect “Brother Blark” is you. (You can deny it, but hey—lying is in your creed, right? That is what stinks about the loss of credibility.) What appears is that you, a Christian, posed as an atheist (The Discomfiter). But that was not enough. You then posed as an atheist, posing as a Christian. You then posed as yourself (The Discomfiter) pretending to be yourself (Blark) in order to dismantle yourself (Blark) to prevent you (Blark) from parodying you (The Discomfiter.)

    Is argument so important to you that you make up people to argue with people you have made up?

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1. Read romans 7. The Bible explicilty tells us that believers sin. So, even if I did, this would not be an argument against Christianity. You're cofusing definitive and progessive sanctification.

    2. I don't think it's okay in all instances to lie to atheists. I do think that parody is okay. What, you don't? I did lie to Danny. It would have spoiled the parody.

    3. Yes, most atheists (and Christians) thought that I was the discomfiter. So, my atheist groupies who follow me verywhere also new that I had posted as Blark. It was an educated guess on the part of the atheist. He guessed right.

    Anyway, Brother Blark is not me. But if you have your mind set on believing something, there's not much i can do about it.

    Bottom line, the discomfiter was a huge embarrassment for Loftus. It made atheists look rather stupid. I can understand why you're so upset with it.

    Now, how can you belive *anyone* ever, since we know that Momma Nature makes liars. Maybe you're lying.

    You guys have lost the intellectual war, now you're turning to the other weapon you have - propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Why is it that only atheists (and, maybe 1 or 2 Christians) have a problem with what Paul did on the discomfiter? I thought it was apologetically sharp and extremely hilarious. Frankly, all this complaining makes me have even less respect for the intellectual guns atheists bring to the table. Seriously, grow a pair.

    To say that you can't ever believe Paul because he did this parody, and kept it up when asked his real name, is ridiculous. If any of you have ever done parody, threw a surprise party, or engaged in flattery then we likewise can never believe you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. :::YAWN!!!:::

    ReplyDelete
  16. Paul "Blark" Manata says above:

    "Anyway, Brother Blark is not me."

    However...you've already stated elsewhere:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/lucky-charms-atheology.html

    "I'm not brother blark.

    The discomfiter claim to be brother blark because he knew that would silence his attemtp at parody.

    I claimed to be brother blark and atheists banned him from their blogs and would not read his parody blog."

    so, Paul, you claim to be brother blark, you claim not to be, your alter ego claims to be, what are people supposed to think?

    Your credibility is shot by silly antics like this.

    Lying makes it hard to keep one's story straight, right Paul?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Paul Manata: "I did lie to Danny."

    Hmmmmmmmm. Enough said.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Paul,

    I think this all goes back to the fact that you shouldn't have done that little parody, because it put you in a difficult situation and you had to dance around the truth to make it work. You made a point with it, but it could have been made in some other way. Now these hypocrite liar atheists will play this harp string for the rest of your life. Though Loftus lied to his wife, kids, church, etc., committed adultery and all the deceit that goes with it, he is going to stick this in your face every now and then. You made your own bed, bro!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Let's look at the list:

    Paul Manata's Deception List 1.0

    1. Posts under false names and/or pretenses on blogs and message boards.

    2. Claims to be 'bloggers' he is not.

    3. Dances around and plays word games to avoid repentance.

    4. Claims to be leaving the blogosphere to focus on his family, but then returns to continue his deceptions.

    5. Gets defeated soundly by Barker and Sansone, but claims victory.

    and so on, and so on.

    Sonny...its time to confess your sins, beg forgiveness, and let go of your pride.

    ReplyDelete
  20. See above for what I'm talking about Paul...

    ReplyDelete