Why Christians Lie – The Gruth Creed, Part 1

‘Bout to investigate the Sherlock Holmes outta some claims, right here…

Recently, I visited my home church for a presentation called “Evolution’s Achilles’ Heel.” I was invited by a church member named Bob, ostensibly because Bob knows that I’m an atheist. I don’t mind that sort of thing, even if many atheists do. I’ve spent too much time in the church to have that unbridled, uncompromising animus towards church people and their ways. I understand them too much. Like Ender.

In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. – Ender’s Game

So I sat down in the Friendship room, with a pad of paper and a pen for notes, and watched this thing with an open mind. What I was treated to was a sack of unrepentant lies.

The video featured a slew of Ph.D. scientists from various universities talking about the fatal flaws of the theory of evolution. They deftly blurred the line between an atheist and an evolutionist, suggesting that evolution is not compatible with a belief in God. Also thrown in to the line-blurring montage was the line between completely separate and distinct scientific theories like The Big Bang and evolution. They mentioned that we don’t really know what a kind is, and then proceeded to say later in the video that creationists see the growth of life as “within kinds.” They repeated mantras of missing transitional fossils, distinctions between micro and macro evolution, fables of people losing tenure because they don’t support evolution (great review on Ben Stein’s “Expelled” here), and the ever popular, Hitler’s “atheistic” regime.

Bob…thought he was imparting truth to me, but how could that be true if nothing in the video was?

What I was more confused about than the presentation, which was the festering boil on the body of truth that I expected it to be, was why no one in the room could see it. Every minute or two of the video was punctuated by thoughtful Mmm’s, deep nods, and tsk tsk-ing at how the evolution nuts twisted the facts. Did it not matter to anyone that not one of these 15 Ph.Ds was an evolutionary biologist, that that was not their expertise? Did it not matter that the number 15 comprises a supremely small number of scientists in the scientific community? Did it not matter to them that all of these objections have been dealt with before quite deftly and conclusively?

They deftly blurred the line between an atheist and an evolutionist, suggesting that evolution is not compatible with a belief in God.

It comes as no surprise to atheists that Christians lie. And I’m certainly not referring to the fact that we have differing viewpoints on a lot that goes on in the world. I mean straight-up, bald faced lying, as in saying things that are not true. At first, this can dismay atheists and other non-believers. Bob wanted me to see that video because he truly thought that he was imparting truth to me, but how could that be true if nothing in the video was? Answer: Bob’s playing with a different deck of cards than I am.

It all comes down to one simple fact: In the Christian paradigm, God is truth. This is different than saying that God reflects truth, that truth is something independent of God against which He can and has been measured, and which He accurately reflects every time. This instead is the claim that God is the literal embodiment of truth, which changes everything. Take it back to grade school with your fractions for a moment:

 God/Truth = _____/False? The answer’s ‘Not God.’

The weapons in the atheist’s arsenal are powerless here, because atheists do not accept the foundational presupposition that God is equal to truth. It’s not even that they say that God can’t be, either. It’s that they view God, as all other things, as something independent of truth, something to be reasonably tested against it, and they find that He fails.

Bob’s playing with a different deck of cards than I am.

This unfortunate God-Truth Position (which I will subsequently be referring to as The Gruth Creed) is the probable cause of Christianity being as impervious to logic as dragon’s skin to magic. I’m certainly not the first person to suggest that Christianity damages important portions of critical thinking, and some might say that this view is condescending, saying that the little sheep just have no idea what they’re doing. I see it differently. I see this instead as a reason to teach our children how to discover rather than what to believe. In doing so, we can engender beautiful inquiry about this fantastical actual world that we live in – without making things up.

Next time, we’ll talk about why Christians accept bad arguments.

Feel free to like, comment, share, and follow below! If you appreciated this blog, please consider becoming my Patron!

Twitter: @Ame0baRepublic


8 thoughts on “Why Christians Lie – The Gruth Creed, Part 1”

  1. This author doesn’t support his claim very well. Instead of giving us an explanation why Christians lie (as suggested in the title), he spends more time complaining about creationism and how Christians accept it as truth without considering the other side of the argument. The author said he watched the film with an “open mind” but did he even consider the different beliefs Christians have about creation and evolution. It’s not black and white.


    1. I included the observation that these beliefs (creation and evolution) are not necessarily antithetical to each other. I’d be interested to know some other aspects of Christian belief about creation and evolution that I did not consider.

      The overarching theme is a fairly simple idea. The reason that Christians lie by others’ standards is that they have different standards for the truth.


    2. Most of the arguments Christians apply against science are horrid misrepresentations of what science says. These are not simply alternate but equivalent viewpoints; they are blatant falsehoods. I don’t believe the Christians who spread these stories understand this, and I think this is the gist of what he was saying.


    3. I find it very interesting how the author actually twisted what was shared in the video to fit his view as an atheist. I have actually seen this video. It is not about atheism at all. It points out scientific missing pieces to the evolution theory and compares the differences between creationist thinking and evolutionary thinking. Lets remind ourselves that it is still called a “theory” for a reason. Hitler is mentioned in the video as in reference to using evolutionary views to fuel his war along with other leaders in history. The video also brings up the crusades lead by so called Christians. Also, the author does not give any supporting details from the video that support his claim that Christians lie.

      I also find it interesting that he claims to have been invited to watch the video for the reason that “Bob knows I’m an atheist,” which is a total lie. You see, the author goes to church all the time. He loves to debate different biblical ideas but tells everyone that he is searching for God. So he is a Christian around some people and an atheist around others. For me that really discredits all personal opinions he has shared. Especially when his big claim is that Christians lie.


      1. Thanks for your comment! To clear some things up:

        1: Evolution is a theory. However, the word “theory” in science is a construct that consists of a body of facts, laws, and observations. Instead of having the meaning “guess”, as it’s used in normal parlance, it represents one of the highest and most reliable ideas in science. Germ theory, heliocentric theory, and plate tectonics are all “just theories” as well, but we know the earth goes around the sun, that plate tectonics cause earthquakes, and that we should wash our hands because microbes cause disease. Evolution is considered just as reliable as these theories. More on that here: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3GagfbA2vo) and here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxnvmmhxPUo)

        2: Social Darwinism, as in Hitler using “evolutionary views” to mass murder people, has nothing to do with the truth of the theory of evolution. Evolution describes how things come to be, how they change over time. It does not describe how we are to treat each other or how we are to make ethical decisions about life.

        3: All of the points that I brought up in my blog have been conclusively dealt in many other instances by people much more qualified than me to speak on biological evolution, and that is why I did not offer refutations here. Refutations are a dime-a-dozen, but what I’m trying to do is to see why people understand things in the way that they do, and share my perspective.

        4: I did use the word “ostensibly” when talking about why Bob invited me, which means “apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually.” I can’t know the reason I was invited, I can only make my own judgment based on what I see. What it’s saying is that I think that’s the reason that I was invited, but perhaps it isn’t, and that’s not a lie.

        5: Going to church doesn’t denote being religious. In many ways, I’m culturally SDA, and it doesn’t really bother me. I take my mother to church a lot of the time, even though I wouldn’t mind sleeping in on Saturdays :). But in the time since I have come out as an atheist, I have never once told someone that I’m “searching for God.” It’s possible that that’s something that you may have thought given where I was (church) and the questions that I raised, but that does not constitute a lie. Also, atheists are not always quite welcome in church, so it may not be the first thing that I mention to people, but that’s also not a lie. I’m not a Christian at all, and in the time since coming out as an atheist, I have never claimed to be. The lies that I have told have been directly related to being a Christian even when I knew that I wasn’t, for which I have publicly and adequately apologized (https://mikkile0n.wordpress.com/2014/12/31/now-that-were-here-happy-new-year/).

        I appreciate your thoughts and concerns and I hope this cleared some things up. Hope you keep reading and commenting! 🙂


  2. As has been stated by a few of the commentators thus far, the author, while thinking his word should be taken as evidence merely because he feels himself intellectually superior, is actually offering up zero evidence to support his claims. Its pretty much like one of my atheist friends coming up to me and asking me about God and me responding simply with, “because I said so.”

    I suggest that the author does the same thing that I currently am, though I’m doing it as part of a college class. Write a research paper, an actual, bona fide research paper complete with sources that you cite accurately and clearly. Below I’ll include two of the websites that I’m using as a point of reference and a means of gathering sources. If you, and this goes for the author as well as any other readers, read the articles at the bottom of my comment, you will see that many of the sources used to disprove the theory of evolution are, in fact, evolutionists. These are people who have spend a good chunk of their time actually doing the research needed to intelligently make the claims that they are, as opposed to, I don’t know, a man with a blog, zero academic experience on the matters of which he speaks, and a chip on his shoulder involving the belief in God.

    So, again, I pose this challenge to the author of this blog: do your homework, kid, and write us an actual research paper where you give us evidence of these things that you claim. Personal experience with the religion does not count as evidence of the things you say. You are speaking of a collective of believers in God, so your interactions with a handful of people count for nothing. Show us your evidence refuting the existence of God and that all you say is right. It might be hard, since a number of evolutionists and atheists have gone on record saying that there is no possible way to prove that a God does not exist…yet they have gone on record saying that the various forms of life and all their complexities actually point to intelligent, intended, design.

    I await your research paper, ye who speaketh with thy foot in thy mouth.



    1. Doing a research paper with those websites as sources of fact is like presenting a lecture on physics and citing the Flat Earth Society website. The only way citing those sites as sources could be legitimate would be to demonstrate the power of propaganda on the uneducated public or to illustrate common misconceptions held by the scientifically illiterate.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s