[furball4paws]

I've seen it called "Lying for God" on some of these threads and inside, I've always objected. That seems sacrilegious to me. But I might have to change my mind.

[MineralMan]

I would think that anyone who lies intentionally about these issues cannot possibly really believe in Christianity. If they did, they would have to speak truthfully. I mean, that's in the basic 10 rules.

It's something for good Christians to think about. If someone is telling you something that you know not to be true, or if it is demonstrated that the person is deliberately lying, then it might be worthwhile questioning which side they're on.

I have no problem with those who take Genesis as the literal truth. That's a matter of religious faith. I have a problem when people lie about things to try to get their religious beliefs taught as science in the public schools.

[Senator Bedfellow]

That particular phraseology has proven...touchy, in the past. I'm tolerably certain it contributed to the downfall of jlogajan, who rather regularly deployed it ;)

[b_sharp]

"But I might have to change my mind."

Why, is there something wrong with the old one?

It's fun to quote mine

[Dimensio]

I've seen it called "Lying for God" on some of these threads and inside, I've always objected.

Have you ever seen a creationist explicitly defend the practice? That is, can you cite an account of a creationist explicitly defending lying as a valid technique for attacking evolution?