PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE: Lying is never righteous!



Pages : [1] 2 3

cirisme
November 9th, 2002, 08:13 PM
I had hesitations about posting this, but here goes nothing! :)



Contrary to popular opinion... lying is never righteous.

When the King of Jericho came to Rahab telling her to expose the Israeli spies, she said not one word of untruth...

The king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men who are come to you, who have entered into your house; for they have come to search out all the land.
The woman took the two men, and hid them; and she said, Yes, the men came to me, but I didn't know whence they were -Joshua 2:3, 4

The spies were protected! And without a lie.

In fact, lying is constantly forbidden and shamed...

A certain servant girl saw him as he sat in the light, and looking intently at him, said, "This man also was with him." He denied Jesus, saying, "Woman, I don't know him." After a little while someone else saw him, and said, "You also are one of them!" But Peter answered, "Man, I am not!" After about one hour passed, another confidently affirmed, saying, "Truly this man also was with him, for he is a Galilean!" But Peter said, "Man, I don't know what you are talking about!" Immediately, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed. The Lord turned, and looked at Peter. Then Peter remembered the Lord's word, how he said to him, "Before the rooster crows you will deny me three times." He went out, and wept bitterly.
-Luke 22:56-62

Jesus also said not to plan what you are going to say.

No thinking of the consequences of what you're about to say... no planning on how you're going to explain things... no planning escapes... no planning:

When they lead you away and deliver you up, don't be anxious beforehand, or premeditate what you will say, but say whatever will be given you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. -Mark 13:11

And we all know... let every man be a liar, but God true.(Romans 3:4)

Any Christian should see lying as blasphemy, because if the Holy Spirit is the one speaking, and God is true, is it not blasphemy?

Jesus is truth...

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me. -John 14:6

If Jesus is the truth, then anything contrary to the truth is contrary to Christ!

Lying is trusting in yourself...

Truth is saying that you have enough faith to put it in God's hands.

So, the question then becomes, are you trusting in man... or God?

I will leave on this final thought...

So that with good courage we say, "The Lord is my helper. I will not fear. What can man do to me?" -Hebrews 13:6

:)

Dee Dee Warren
November 9th, 2002, 08:15 PM
What about the midwives who lied about why they didn't kill the Hebrews babies in Egypt.. I am sorry but I don't agree with that blanket statement. And I think you are splitting hairs with Rahab... she lied.

cirisme
November 9th, 2002, 08:19 PM
What about the midwives who lied about why they didn't kill the Hebrews babies in Egypt..

And what about it? What about the sorcery, the pagan ideas, the idols, etc that are recorded in scripture? Just because it's recorded, does not mean it is approved.


And I think you are splitting hairs with Rahab... she lied.

Where?

billwald
November 9th, 2002, 11:20 PM
Gos misquoted Sarah to Abraham.


Gen 18:11-13

12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
13 And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?
(KJV)

Dee Dee Warren
November 10th, 2002, 07:59 AM
Rahab did in fact lie. You only quoted part of this passage. Here is the entire thing with the lie in bold.

Then the woman took the two men and hid them. So she said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. And it happened as the gate was being shut, when it was dark, that the men went out. Where the men went I do not know; pursue them quickly, for you may overtake them.” (But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order on the roof.) Then the men pursued them by the road to the Jordan, to the fords. And as soon as those who pursued them had gone out, they shut the gate.

No matter how you slice it, that is an outright lie.

Mr Miacca
November 10th, 2002, 08:02 AM
Lying is never righteous!
I wonder if the surviving members of the Frank family would agree with that? When the Tenbooms lied to the Nazis to protect them from being slaughtered. Or any other Jews who were protected by gentiles.

Dee Dee Warren
November 10th, 2002, 08:04 AM
When I had asked about the midwives, you said,


And what about it? What about the sorcery, the pagan ideas, the idols, etc that are recorded in scripture? Just because it's recorded, does not mean it is approved.

That was knee-jerk reaction, you really should have consulted the text first.... which is as follows:

But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?” And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.”
[U]Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.

We can split hairs and say that God was only rewarding their fear of Him, and that is true, but equally true is the fact that their acts which resulted from their fear is depicted in a favorable light.

Mr Miacca
November 10th, 2002, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Rahab did in fact lie. You only quoted part of this passage. Here is the entire thing with the lie in bold.

Then the woman took the two men and hid them. So she said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. And it happened as the gate was being shut, when it was dark, that the men went out. Where the men went I do not know; pursue them quickly, for you may overtake them.” (But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order on the roof.) Then the men pursued them by the road to the Jordan, to the fords. And as soon as those who pursued them had gone out, they shut the gate.

No matter how you slice it, that is an outright lie.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't there a Rahab in Jesus' family tree?

Dee Dee Warren
November 10th, 2002, 08:09 AM
Of course she is... and so was David who was a murderer, and so were a lot of people, ALL of whom were sinners.... go figure.

Dee Dee Warren
November 10th, 2002, 08:12 AM
The fact is that the Bible shows a "hierarchy of morals" in active effect. When confronted with a certain decisional crisis, one must choose the "lesser of two evils" (by one point of view) or even the "greater of two goods" if a choice MUST be made. This does not smack of situational ethics or relativism as who think too shallowly may surmise, for an absolute standard must underlie such a hierarchy for their to be an unchangeable hierarchy that makes any cogent sense.

cirisme
November 10th, 2002, 09:26 AM
<sigh>

I'm not saying that if God leads you to do it in an extreme circumstance that you shouldn't do it, what I'm saying is don't worry about what you're going to say(Mark 13:11) and if you do think God tells you to do it, don't try to slice it as being some righteous hero. :rolleyes:

Dee Dee Warren
November 10th, 2002, 09:33 AM
God commended the behavior of both Rahab and the midwives. That is a fact. They behaved righteously in the situations in which they were faced. We cannot have a view of the Bible and ethics that lacks depth or we are guilty of the same shallow end of the pool disease that afflicts sceptics who see contradictions within verses of each other.

Poly
November 10th, 2002, 11:24 AM
Where else in the bible does God speak of lying other than where He says not to bear false witness concerning your neighbor? This really just narrows down a specific type of a lie.

Dee Dee Warren
November 10th, 2002, 11:48 AM
There are many, many places... too many to list. If you have a concordance, just look up "lie" "lying" "falsehood" etc.

billwald
November 10th, 2002, 01:45 PM
Should be obvious that preserving human life is more important than preserving the truth. Standard example: NAZI demands citizen tell him if there are Jews in the house.

ddevonb
November 10th, 2002, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
The fact is that the Bible shows a "hierarchy of morals" in active effect. When confronted with a certain decisional crisis, one must choose the "lesser of two evils" (by one point of view) or even the "greater of two goods" if a choice MUST be made. This does not smack of situational ethics or relativism as who think too shallowly may surmise, for an absolute standard must underlie such a hierarchy for their to be an unchangeable hierarchy that makes any cogent sense.

Dee Dee, I would respectfully disagree with this premise. God never asks us to chose between two immoral acts.
Simply certain acts can be righteous or evil depending on the circumstances.
Giving false testimony against someone is evil. Lying to protect an innocent person from harm by an evil person is righteous. It is not a matter of immoral and less immoral.
If you murdered someone it is evil, but if you killed someone while protecting your family or self from that person...it is righteous.

Dee Dee Warren
November 10th, 2002, 03:08 PM
We are saying the same thing in two different ways I think.

Poly
November 10th, 2002, 05:11 PM
There are many, many places... too many to list. If you have a concordance, just look up "lie" "lying" "falsehood" etc.

Sorry, my bad. I meant to ask where in the bible does it speak of lying being a sin other than bearing false witness against a neighbor.

Dee Dee Warren
November 10th, 2002, 05:31 PM
Actually that is what I meant... it is said to be a sin in multiple places other than that Decalogue. In Proverbs alone it is mentioned numerous times.

bill betzler
November 10th, 2002, 06:25 PM
One lie does not a liar make. But if you become a liar there is no place in heaven for you. Also, the midwives did bare false witness against the Hebrew women in that they said that the women were quick in child bearing when they were not.

God pays those who work for him. The midwives were rewarded for saving the babies. The lie to pharaoh was to save their own skin. No where in the scriptures are we told that it is acceptable to lie to save our lives. The saving of our lives is not worth the sin.

This story does not justify lying.

Dee Dee Warren
November 10th, 2002, 07:06 PM
Nonsense.

bill betzler
November 10th, 2002, 07:51 PM
Nonsense because you have no verses to support your position??

Dee Dee Warren
November 10th, 2002, 08:36 PM
No nonsense because the verses don't support yours.

bill betzler
November 11th, 2002, 07:26 AM
So Dee Dee, choose one of my wrong points and tell me why I'm wrong.

billwald
November 11th, 2002, 01:39 PM
"One lie does not a liar make."

Old rabbinical saying, "Only an honest person can lie." Something like that.

mia8
November 11th, 2002, 01:47 PM
im in trouble then, i lie at work all the time, well at least when its convienent.

Knight
November 11th, 2002, 02:07 PM
I would love to comment on this thread but Dee Dee has done it for me.

Great work Dee Dee!

If this thread were stomach acid you would represent the Alka Seltzer.

(whatever that meant :D)

Dee Dee Warren
November 11th, 2002, 02:09 PM
Thank you Knight!!! I know that compliments from you are hard-earned, so I sincerely appreciate it. And here is a kiss for good measure :kiss:

1013
November 11th, 2002, 07:12 PM
rahab is obne of the heros of the faith listed somewhere in hebrews as a model of faith.

One of the prophets, either jerimaiah or ezekiel I believe, lied to save his skin from a hostile king. I can't remember which though.

cirisme, the midwives are only given praise. no judgement in scriptures is passed upon them for lieing whatsoever. only praise.

Jesus sumed up the law in two ways. Love God, and love your neighbor. If you lie to your neighbor about how you still have all that junk you borrowed from him in your garage, you are sinning and acting in a way that is contrary to Godly love. but the lie of the midwives was in no way a violation of Jesus' two all encompassing laws.

Jaltus
November 11th, 2002, 09:06 PM
Please show where the midwives are given praise for LYING.

It does not happen.

I would like to point out that two liars were killed for one little lie each, namely Ananias and Sapphira.

I would also like to point out that nowhere in scripture is lying endorsed.

I would also like to point out, contra Dee Dee that there is no heirarchy of morals in terms of what sins are "ok" and which ones are not. All of them cut you off from God. God is totally pure and without sin. God is Holy. Therefore, God could NEVER endorse ANY kind of sin, it goes against His nature. If you disagree with me, read I John 1.

As for choosing between two sins, read I Corinthians 10:13
13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

Sorry, but it does not fly that God would praise people for lying. Oh, as for Rahab, she is praised for her FAITH, not her lying. Bad example, that one.

Dee Dee Warren
November 11th, 2002, 09:19 PM
You have completely misrepesented or misunderstood me Jaltus and I will prove it over the next few posts... hopefully. But you are absolutely incorrect.... and don't sic your Unitarian goon on me :)

Dee Dee Warren
November 11th, 2002, 09:29 PM
Okay Bill, I will take you up on proving your error, but this is going to take looking at the Bible and Christian ethics with more depth than a Chick tract. We were discussing the Hebrew midwives, and here is the text again:

Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?” And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.” Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.

It is a fact that this text specifically mentions that God blessed these women without any censure of their lie, and in fact specific commendation of their faith (i.e. they feared God). That would be odd indeed if their lie was grievous in the sight of God.

You have claimed that they were righteous only in saving the children but unrighteous in lying to the Pharaoh. In fact your position is that they should have just told the truth and trusted God to spare their lives. There is a honking inconsistency here and some loaded assumptions. First the assumptions… you are assuming that they lied to the Pharaoh merely to save their own lives. That may certainly be a reasonable assumption, but the text says nothing about their fear of Pharaoh but rather only their fear of God. In fact, if they had told the truth, the Pharaoh may just have turned around and found other midwives whom he could intimidate more. Instead, he simply gave the order to the people to voluntarily kill their own male children. Thus, the midwives may in fact have saved even more lives which could have been a motivating factor for them. The inconsistency lies in the fact that their lie is not their only “sin” in this passage if you are going to hold that there is not a hierarchy of morals in Christian ethics.

The Bible tells us to obey those placed in authority over us (Ecclesiastes 8:2; Romans 13). These texts do not give any “escape clause,” for all intents and purposes, in a superficial “low context” reading of the text, it is an unbreakable absolute. Yet not only is this highly counter-intuitive, it would cause a contradiction in the text, for in
Acts 5:29, we are told to obey God rather than man. Why didn’t Paul mention this condition?? Because in the “high context” Biblical structure and culture, it was obvious.

This brings us to the midwives once again. You are saying they were righteous in sparing the children, but then again, they disobeyed the “king.” Why was it okay to disobey the King in that situation?? Because a greater moral imperative was put upon them. It is the exact same situation with Rahab the harlot. She lied to save the Hebrew spies, and is commended for her faith in Hebrews 11:31 (and in Joshua 6:25) with no censure of her alleged immoral lie.

Now of course this leads us to ponder what is the definition of sinful lying. Is all lying inherently or equally sinful? Or is all lying immoral?? The fact is we all consider certain technical “lies” as morally benign, such as, for example, when a boxer fools his opponent into believing he will punch with one fist but instead lands the other. Most of us are deceptive about our true physical appearance by wearing cosmetics or other appearance-altering aids.

The fact is that the Bible does teach that not all sins are equal nor will all judgment be equal (John 19:11, Matthew 10 & 11). We also inherently know this as reflected by our laws. There are differing levels of crime and differing punishments. We also recognize the concept of mitigating circumstances.

So the Bible gives us pictures of real people in real situations. There is an absolute hierarchy of morals, and in any given situation we must weigh our nations and behavior by assessing our predicament in light of these absolutes. Some may call it choosing the lesser of two evils (lie or allow the spies to be killed), but the more Biblical outlook would be choosing the greater good (tell the truth or save the lives of the spies).

bill betzler
November 13th, 2002, 08:41 AM
Dee Dee,



It is a fact that this text specifically mentions that God blessed these women without any censure of their lie, and in fact specific commendation of their faith (i.e. they feared God). That would be odd indeed if their lie was grievous in the sight of God.

As I mentioned earlier God pays for services rendered. See Ezekiel below. And He pays good. Now do you want to assume that Nebuchadnezzar and all his army never lied during these campaigns?

Ezekiel
29:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:
29:19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.
29:20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labor wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.

I'll answer more later. This story is actually a good case study on "two masters," not the first part but the second not so often quoted part.

bill

Dee Dee Warren
November 13th, 2002, 08:44 AM
Bill that is irrelevant to the point made. I am going to be taking a leave from TOL for a while, so if I don't respond further, that would be why.

Pilgrimagain
November 13th, 2002, 08:50 AM
Dee Dee, Rahab is also commended for it as an action of faith in James.

bill betzler
November 14th, 2002, 09:05 AM
The account of the midwives is a good example of the words of Jesus when he said no man can serve two masters. And with a little thought you should be able to realize that truth and lies are two different masters. You cannot serve them both.

Matt
6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

The midwives are not shown to love God and hate pharaoh, but rather, because they feared God more than pharaoh they held to God (did what He wanted) and despised pharaoh by lying to him.

Rahab was no different. See saw the power of the Israelites that God had given them and decided to change sides. The person of flesh still trusted in the walls of Jericho and their men of valor.

The bigger story for the midwives and Rahab is that God intervened on the behalf of the Israelites. that is not to discount their faith, but also not to justify all of their actions.

Look at the story of the usurper Jacob and see if lying is justified or necessary to accomplish the will of God.

My post on Nebuchadnezzar shows that the employer pays the bills. The midwives did God's will by not killing the babies so God payed them. If they would have killed the babies then they would have been working for Pharaoh and he would have paid them.

Dee Dee, in the court room it is not sufficient to say you object without giving the reason why. Nonsense and irrelevant will not be sufficient to sway the judge to your side. Judges require a little more than that. You have given no verses to support your view. You may have an hierarchal theory but it will need support.

bill

Jaltus
November 14th, 2002, 09:40 AM
I would like to point out that everyone is assuming that the midwives lied. It could in fact be true that many of the Hebrew women gave birth early. The Bible does not say that they are wrong, it just records what they said.

Mind you, the women could be hiding behind making a general claim and using it for specific cases it was not necessarily true for, which is misleading but not a lie.

cirisme
November 14th, 2002, 04:30 PM
Jaltus, good job.

:thumb:

bill betzler
November 14th, 2002, 09:48 PM
“When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive."

Actually the scriptures are quite clear pertaining to the duty of the Hebrew midwives.

"When you see them on the birthstools"

If the midwives did not see them on the birthstool then they would not have disobeyed Pharoah. The scriptures say they

"did not do as the king of Egypt commanded."

Therefore they did see the women on the birthstools.

Jaltus
November 14th, 2002, 09:52 PM
bill,

You may want to reread my post. My point is that if it happened a few times, that the Hebrews gave birth quickly, they could use that as a generalization behind which they would hide.

bill betzler
November 16th, 2002, 07:13 AM
Jaltus,

Actually, I did read it the first time and it has been in the back of my mind being tossed around even as I posted to your post.

You could be right, though they disobeyed pharaoh, and they answered him as they did, pharaoh may not have cross examined them enough to actually cause them to lie.

A good point.

Of course you know that now no one can use this verse to justify lying. So when their wives burn the dinner they cannot say it was the best dinner yet. Unless they really mean, it was the best "burnt" dinner yet.:)

Hank
November 16th, 2002, 08:36 AM
The fact is that the Bible shows a "hierarchy of morals" in active effect. When confronted with a certain decisional crisis, one must choose the "lesser of two evils" (by one point of view) or even the "greater of two goods" if a choice MUST be made. This does not smack of situational ethics or relativism as who think too shallowly may surmise, for an absolute standard must underlie such a hierarchy for their to be an unchangeable hierarchy that makes any cogent sense.

You are right Dee Dee. This does not smack of situational ethics or relativism, it’s the definition of situational ethics and relativism.

billwald
November 16th, 2002, 12:57 PM
1. Is there a difference between lying and telling a partial truth that stacks the deck?

2. Is it possible to tell the whole truth? (John 21:25)

3. Is it possible to know the whole truth?

bill betzler
November 17th, 2002, 06:49 AM
2. Is it possible to tell the whole truth? (John 21:25)

3. Is it possible to know the whole truth?

We will never know all about Jesus, and in heaven there will be at least one secret we all have from one another.


1. Is there a difference between lying and telling a partial truth that stacks the deck?

Allegories move us in that direction for one way, if you don't want to lie and yet must answer. It is not a lie yet evades the desired answer, wanted by the questioneer, to the question.

bill betzler
November 17th, 2002, 07:02 AM
You are right Dee Dee. This does not smack of situational ethics or relativism, it’s the definition of situational ethics and relativism.


I was thinking that also and was some what curious as to how she was going to justify the statement. I think she would have trouble.

The one possibility that I see is between governments. Is there a moral law, e.g., that requires Iraq to tell the USA the truth?

Hank
November 17th, 2002, 07:48 AM
The one possibility that I see is between governments. Is there a moral law, e.g., that requires Iraq to tell the USA the truth?

Often governments are spoken of as entities within themselves. But for a government to lie, someone has to tell the lie. Even if a group of people agrees on the lie, it’s still a lie. Often also it is justified in the name of self-defense. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a lie regardless of the reason. If you are going to have absolute morality, you have to have some absolutes. Otherwise it’s just a slippery slope at the top of a hill.

mindlight
November 17th, 2002, 08:01 AM
Jesus never lied and always had the wisdom to find a way of answering the question that put the problem of answering it back on his listeners or at least challenged them to look a little deeper. He had the authority, wisdom and presence to do this and to get away with this until his appointed time and it would not have fitted his mission to lie in any circumstances. He was and is the ruler of the kingdom of God not a politician or soldier playing to the rules of the present worldly order.

But there are numerous examples of righteous men called to different purposes lying through out scripture e.g. for political or military purposes.

King David is a classic example lying to Achish (1 Sam 21 v 10 - 15) when he pretended madness and in (1 Sam 27 v 5 - 12) where he misled him that he was attacking Israeli outposts when in fact he was attacking the Geshurites, Girzites and Amalekites thereby increasing the strength and security of his future kingdom.

Maybe a lie should be measured against the purpose it achieves on some occasions and as previous person said against the hierarchy of values that Christian share. David had been promised the throne by God and had a responsibility to keep himself and his men alive. He wanted to promote the kingdom of Israel and used deceit as a way of hiding the ways in which he was doing that - wiping out all the witnesses to this by his total destruction of Israels enemies.

Maybe also a lie should be measured against the values the one to whom it is spoken. Achish has little credibility from a Jewish or later from a Christian point of view and neither did the Nazis. God may allow lies to achieve his purposes with people whom he knows do not love the truth and who would respond inappropriately to it.

Hank
November 17th, 2002, 08:52 AM
If you want to believe and teach that God approves and even tells people to lie when certain circumstances seem expedient, then that’s certainly your prerogative. However in your post you basically argued that the end justifies the means. Is that your belief?

1013
November 17th, 2002, 08:14 PM
just adding this for discussion. don't know if it'll make any more difference to anyone as the lie is not praised but of course it is not condemned either.

But how strange that a prophet of God, one who is to call the people of God back to the law is sinning here with no condemnation, if he's sinning at all.

I think this is just further evidence to the the effect that "lieing is sin" is a general fact with exceptions and not an absolute fact.



Jerimaiah 38

24 Then Zedekiah said to Jeremiah, "Do not let anyone know about this conversation, or you may die. 25 If the officials hear that I talked with you, and they come to you and say, 'Tell us what you said to the king and what the king said to you; do not hide it from us or we will kill you,' 26 then tell them, 'I was pleading with the king not to send me back to Jonathan's house to die there.' "
27 All the officials did come to Jeremiah and question him, and he told them everything the king had ordered him to say. So they said no more to him, for no one had heard his conversation with the king.
28 And Jeremiah remained in the courtyard of the guard until the day Jerusalem was captured.

billwald
November 17th, 2002, 08:26 PM
"Jesus never lied and always had the wisdom to find a way of answering the question that put the problem of answering it back on his listeners or at least challenged them to look a little deeper."

Far as we know he never told a direct lie. He occasionally obfuscated. He made at least one scientifically questionable statement, "Unless a seed falls to the ground and dies . . . ."

smilax
November 17th, 2002, 08:28 PM
"The sun sets," is scientifically questionable by that definition. What exactly is your point? Equivocation is not lying, by the way.

mindlight
November 18th, 2002, 06:56 AM
Hank

It would have been right to tell a lie to the Nazis about whether or not I was hiding Jews if I thought that that would have saved them. Here love for the Jew I was hiding was the higher truth than telling a deceived SS Guard a truth that would mean the death of a person. In other words there is a hierarchy of values that should govern ones actions and in a fallen world one often has to choose between the lesser of two evils.

I believe Davids techniques of survival and of eliminating Israels enemies fitted the times he was called in and Gods purpose and did achieve Gods purpose, but interestingly he was not regarded worthy of building the temple of God.

Machiavelli told his prince that the princes ends justified the means. That is different from arguing that Gods ends may sometimes justify ungodly means. In a fallen world in which sin is a reality God may sometimes allow a deceiving spirit to lead our rulers astray because he wants to achieve the ruin of that leader. He may harden the heart of Pharoah to live his lie or the hearts of those who hear the truth of Gods word so that they cannot feel its power and are instead handed over to their sins.

Jeremiah obeys his Kings command having previously shared the word the Lord gave him with the people and with the King himself. Having already completed the task he had been given he kept himself alive according to the promise of the king not to kill him. He is no where condemned for this deceit to officials of the king who were themselves deceivers and who had been attempting to mislead the king against the expressed view of God that had come through Jeremiah.

To apply the same principle to our creation discussion I suppose some would suggest that what I should do is tell you that God created via the mechanisms you believe you can discern from the book of nature ie via macro evolution and over billions of years. ('weak to the weak, strong to the strong'). Thus I offer you a placebo which allows you to reconcile faith in God with rejection of an element of his word which you cannot accept as it stands. However I obey no king or higher purpose in doing so and I encourage you to continue to believe a lie if I do. 99% of the time honesty is the best policy I believe - the circumstances in which it is not are exceptional ones not normal ones.

Pilgrimagain
November 18th, 2002, 07:35 AM
In other words there is a hierarchy of values that should govern ones actions and in a fallen world one often has to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Well said.

bill betzler
November 18th, 2002, 08:26 AM
One of a few thoughts that comes to my mind; is the account of Moses formalizing the acceptance of divorce. It doesn't matter why he did it, but that he did. I'm sure there was a social end that justified the mean and in his situation it was expedient to do so.

But then along comes Jesus to condemn those that had need to avail themselves of the divorce proceedings. That is,--- because of the hardness of your hearts---.

bill betzler
November 18th, 2002, 08:49 AM
Hank,


Often governments are spoken of as entities within themselves. But for a government to lie, someone has to tell the lie. Even if a group of people agrees on the lie, it’s still a lie. Often also it is justified in the name of self-defense. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a lie regardless of the reason. If you are going to have absolute morality, you have to have some absolutes. Otherwise it’s just a slippery slope at the top of a hill.

I agree. I would just add that one government is not required to answer the queries of an opposing government. But no justification for lying.

Hank
November 18th, 2002, 12:26 PM
mindlight


It would have been right to tell a lie to the Nazis about whether or not I was hiding Jews if I thought that that would have saved them.

This is the argument that the ends justifies the means. I would ask you again, do you believe that sometimes the end justifies the means?


Here love for the Jew I was hiding was the higher truth than telling a deceived SS Guard a truth that would mean the death of a person.

You are arguing that the life of a person is more valuable than the truth. I’m assuming you are a Christian. If so, would you deny your belief in the person you call Christ to save your life.


In other words there is a hierarchy of values that should govern ones actions and in a fallen world one often has to choose between the lesser of two evils.

No one has to choose between the lesser of two evils. This is that slippery slope that leads to all kinds of false beliefs. You can choose to tell the truth or you can choose to lie regardless of the consequences. Jesus chose to tell the truth even when faced with death and the world was changed forever. How much would be changed if everyone chose to tell the truth regardless of the consequences.


That is different from arguing that Gods ends may sometimes justify ungodly means.

Do you realize how much ungodliness, pain, torture, and basic inhumanity has been justified by that statement. Just who decides when ungodly means are justified?


To apply the same principle to our creation discussion I suppose some would suggest that what I should do is tell you that God created via the mechanisms you believe you can discern from the book of nature ie via macro evolution and over billions of years. ('weak to the weak, strong to the strong'). Thus I offer you a placebo which allows you to reconcile faith in God with rejection of an element of his word which you cannot accept as it stands. However I obey no king or higher purpose in doing so and I encourage you to continue to believe a lie if I do. 99% of the time honesty is the best policy I believe - the circumstances in which it is not are exceptional ones not normal ones.

This has no application to our discussion regarding evolution. You believe the Bible should be interpreted a certain way no matter what and I believe the Bible should be interpreted in light of the evidence God has given us. Neither of us is lying, we just have different beliefs.

Gavin
November 18th, 2002, 02:44 PM
Just my two cents:

1 Samuel 16:2
But Samuel said, "How can I go? Saul will hear about it and kill me." The LORD said, "Take a heifer with you and say, 'I have come to sacrifice to the LORD .'

God commands a lie.

Dee Dee Warren
November 18th, 2002, 07:42 PM
Okay, I am back and can see that a lot has been posted on this subject while I have been gone, and unfortunately most of it betrays shallow thinking on this subject. I will start with the more foundational issue before moving on to the Biblical text. When I had stated that the Bible teaches a hierarchy of morals (something that we all also know intuitively as true if we are honest) I made a point of saying that this position is not relativism or situational ethics. In response Hank had said:


This does not smack of situational ethics or relativism, it’s the definition of situational ethics and relativism.

This is absolutely (pun intended) and utterly incorrect. The unfortunate thing is that most Christians have an unbiblical definition/idea of what it means to hold to moral absolutes, and thus cannot understand that there is a pecking order to moral decisions. Now how is this not relativism?? Let me make this clear, I am a moral absolutist, but more precisely a Biblical moral absolutist.

Relativism teaches that morals are relative to the person. In any given identical situation, what is moral for you to do, may not be moral for me to do. There is no absolute rule by which to objectively measure our actions. That is not at all what I have advocated here. I am applying an ABSOLUTE hierarchy of morals which would be applied ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENTLY. As Koukl has put it, “Moral relativism doesn’t have to do with relative circumstances, it has to do with relative people,” and this distinction makes a world of difference, i.e. the difference between Biblical and unbiblical moral functioning. Biblical morality upholds a standard that is outside of and binding upon all persons.

The next issue of course is exactly what is the “lying” that is condemned by the Bible as sinful. It is simply immoral deception. Not all deception is immoral. My points in my last post about sports players “faking” their opponents and about people altering their true physical appearance have remained unanswered (as well as my point about the “escape clause” for the command to obey the government). In another thread I graphically demonstrated to Cirisme that by the strict and unbiblical stand he has advocated here, that he would be sinning and be completely unrighteous by some of the jokes that he tells here since they involve an untruth, such as claiming that he has Knight’s password.

I see also that the implications of this strong stand have made even its would-be adherents internally uncomfortable by the splitting of the hairs that has gone on. If anyone wants to be strictly technical on this, equivocation would be lying and not being entirely forthright would be lying. Jesus was not always completely forthright, nor has God throughout the entire Bible. Why is this not lying??

On another front, even if all lying were a sin, not all sins are equal, something not only taught by the Bible, but also by our own basic common sense. Cheating on a math exam is not the same as sniper shooting people in Virginia.

To tie up some other loose ends, it was claimed by Altus that Rehab was not praised for her lying, but just for her faith. However, the fact is that her faith cannot be separated from her lie. She was praised for her actions in the whole situation, which cannot be parceled out into the good portions and the bad portions when absolutely no condemnation ever appears for her alleged immoral lie. According to some here, her lie demonstrated a complete lack of faith for, according to them, she should have told the truth and trusted God to deliver the spies. The same thing would go for the midwives, but again, before AND after mentioning their lie, the Bible praises them for their faith, which was demonstrated by their actions which is the only way that we can see a person’s faith as James has eloquently stated that we are justified by our works before men.

bill betzler
November 18th, 2002, 09:42 PM
Hank


Just my two cents:

1 Samuel 16:2
But Samuel said, "How can I go? Saul will hear about it and kill me." The LORD said, "Take a heifer with you and say, 'I have come to sacrifice to the LORD .'

God commands a lie.

It wasn't a lie. Samuel did take the heifer and sacrifice it.

bill betzler
November 18th, 2002, 11:01 PM
To tie up some other loose ends, it was claimed by Altus that Rehab was not praised for her lying, but just for her faith. However, the fact is that her faith cannot be separated from her lie. She was praised for her actions in the whole situation, which cannot be parceled out into the good portions and the bad portions when absolutely no condemnation ever appears for her alleged immoral lie.

Luke 16:

1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a
certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same
was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I
hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship;
for thou mayest be no longer steward.
3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do?
for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I
cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of
the stewardship, they may receive me into their
houses.
5 So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him,
and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my
lord?
6 And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said
unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and
write fifty.
7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And
he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said
unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.
8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he
had done wisely: for the children of this world are in
their generation wiser than the children of light.
9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the
mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they
may receive you into everlasting habitations.


Dee Dee. How can you prove that Rehab's faith cannot be serparated from her lie? Even if you could it wouldn't matter, since the reward for Rehab was her earthly life, and not eternal life.

In Luke 16 we see a commendable wisdom that does not lead to eternal life but does prosper individuals on this earth. The parable is by Jesus himself. If the scriptures would have told us that Rehab gained eternal life by her lie then you would have an argument, but it doesn't.

Rev 21:
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable,
and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and
idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the
lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is
the second death.

Liars will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Lying is a sin to repent of.

Dee Dee Warren
November 19th, 2002, 03:24 AM
Bill, you make no sense my friend. The praise for Rahab's faithful actions with the spies appears in the great hall of faith Chapter in Hebrews which is specifically referring to eternal life and eternal rewards and that act specifially involves her lie. Your unjust steward example proves my point since Jesus specifically mentions he was unjust. There is NEVER any condemnation of Rahab's alleged immoral lie because it was not immoral. She did the right thing. It is I who have made my prima facie case. It is the exact same situation with the Hebrew midwives. And as someone mentioned, Corrie Ten Boom, though you would have us believe that her "lying" to save Jews from Hitler was something she needed to repent of. Nonsense. Something is wrong with your moral compass my friend. Additionally,
your "answers" are very selective and pick and choose out of my points to answer, thus, as such are nonanswers.

Dee Dee Warren
November 19th, 2002, 03:28 AM
It wasn't a lie. Samuel did take the heifer and sacrifice it.

How consistent are you going to be Bill? Did Clinton lie about Monica Lewinsky when he said "I did not have intercourse with that woman."

mindlight
November 19th, 2002, 10:57 AM
Hank

Peter denies he even knew Jesus in order to save his own life by telling a
lie and this was a sin.
v
Rahab protects the men hiding in her house with a deception and that is not
a sin.

A prophet or a soldier obeys a kings call to deceive Gods enemies is not a
sin
v
A counsellor of the king tells him a lie - is a sin.

Peters end was to save his life at the expense of his allegiance to Christ
and thus to lie in that case was immoral - so his end does not justify his
means

Rahabs end was to protect the lives of the men in her house who served the
true God and his people and she did so at the risk of her own life. She
deceives deceived men and is praised for it. Her end is justified by her
means. Indeed to have spoken the truth would have probably been a sin in
this case.

David deceives Achish and thereby strengthens the kingdom God had given him
and annointed him to rule. His end justified his means.

Jeremiah tells a lie to liars on the order of the king. His obedience to
the king was his highest priority in this case and he did not sin.

The counsellors of the king tell him lies which they even pretend are the
words of God and thereby they sin.

Those who have the Spirit can expect His guidance in every situation and we
have Gods word as a model for our actions also.

Gavin
November 19th, 2002, 11:00 AM
How consistent are you going to be Bill? Did Clinton lie about Monica Lewinsky when he said "I did not have intercourse with that woman."
lol! You are pretty cool, Dee Dee! :)

Hank
November 19th, 2002, 12:25 PM
Relativism teaches that morals are relative to the person. In any given identical situation, what is moral for you to do, may not be moral for me to do. There is no absolute rule by which to objectively measure our actions. That is not at all what I have advocated here. I am applying an ABSOLUTE hierarchy of morals which would be applied ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENTLY. As Koukl has put it, “Moral relativism doesn’t have to do with relative circumstances, it has to do with relative people,” and this distinction makes a world of difference, i.e. the difference between Biblical and unbiblical moral functioning. Biblical morality upholds a standard that is outside of and binding upon all persons.

Dee Dee by saying this you are saying that no matter what action you want to consider, you can find a worse action. Therefore you can justify anything if you can just describe something worse. This reminds me of the battle between Knight and Zak where Knight kept using an example that was what everyone would have thought was immoral. Zak just thought up a more immoral reason for why he was forced into doing the immoral action and Knight cried foul as if this didn’t apply for some reason. And if that can be done, then nothing is absolutely immoral because it can be caused by something even more immoral. In other words, it’s all relative.


I see also that the implications of this strong stand have made even its would-be adherents internally uncomfortable by the splitting of the hairs that has gone on. If anyone wants to be strictly technical on this, equivocation would be lying and not being entirely forthright would be lying. Jesus was not always completely forthright, nor has God throughout the entire Bible. Why is this not lying??

I won’t speak for others but you haven’t see me splitting hairs. I have said that lying is wrong period.

You have never answered my question so I’ll ask again. Do you believe that the end justifies the means?

Hank
November 19th, 2002, 12:29 PM
Mindlight you have stated that the end justifies the means. I thought that concept was alien to Christian beliefs but apparently I was wrong. However this is the foundation for the belief that there is no absolute morality. You can justify any immoral act if the results are good enough with this philosophy.

bill betzler
November 19th, 2002, 02:10 PM
Dee Dee,


Bill, you make no sense my friend. The praise for Rahab's faithful actions with the spies appears in the great hall of faith Chapter in Hebrews which is specifically referring to eternal life and eternal rewards and that act specifially involves her lie.

Dee Dee, thank you, I consider you a friend in the Lord also, but your theology is lacking. You say a lot of things but you are short on support. I applaud your opening and closing statements, but it's that presentation of the evidence to support those statements wherein you come up short.

Show me in Hebrews 11 where Rahab is given eternal life.

Heb
11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.



Your unjust steward example proves my point since Jesus specifically mentions he was unjust. There is NEVER any condemnation of Rahab's alleged immoral lie because it was not immoral. She did the right thing. It is I who have made my prima facie case. It is the exact same situation with the Hebrew midwives. And as someone mentioned, Corrie Ten Boom, though you would have us believe that her "lying" to save Jews from Hitler was something she needed to repent of. Nonsense. Something is wrong with your moral compass my friend.

Sorry, no prima facie. My point was that people can be commended for doing wrong because they receive what they seek after. Rahab received what she sought after, her mortal life and that of her family. The point of the two biblical accounts is that these woman had faith, but not all faith leads to eternal life. Therefore, the absence of condemnation is not necessarily an acceptance of a moral goodness.



Additionally,
your "answers" are very selective and pick and choose out of my points to answer, thus, as such are nonanswers.

Ok, repost some point that you want specifically answered. You know in a court room, it isn't necessary to defeat each point. Destroy the foundations of those points and the credibility is on your side.

bill

bill betzler
November 19th, 2002, 02:21 PM
How consistent are you going to be Bill? Did Clinton lie about Monica Lewinsky when he said "I did not have intercourse with that woman."

See Dee Dee, These are your answers. Show me where I was incorrect. I still say that he didn't lie. Your trying to make God the author of lies. You can't even try to justify that.

As far as Clinton goes, define your words and show me the evidence and I'll answer the question. At the minimum I'm sure they had verbal intercourse, since they worked together. Apparantly the word intercourse has many modifiers.

Dee Dee Warren
November 19th, 2002, 05:23 PM
As far as Clinton goes, define your words and show me the evidence and I'll answer the question. At the minimum I'm sure they had verbal intercourse, since they worked together. Apparantly the word intercourse has many modifiers.

Bill unless you retract that absolutely moronic comment, I am not going to waste my time responding to anything further you say. You can get peeved but that is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

Dee Dee Warren
November 19th, 2002, 05:25 PM
Hey Gavin.. thanx!!! Not bad for an orthodox preterist postmillenial chick huh??


Hank... I will respond when I get a chance but right now I have promised something to a good friend on relationships within the Trinity and the implications for the Messianc reign. Not light writing I can assure you.

Jaltus
November 19th, 2002, 05:58 PM
Dee Dee,

You have your own special definition of lying, so why don't we hammer out a definition for that?

First off, lying would not include intended deception, such as during war or during a game, as intentionally misleading someone in those circumstances is EXPECTED.

Thus, expectation would be part of the definition of lying.

Telling someone a truth which is not what they meant, though fulfills the question is not lying, such as the little girl telling the Nazis that the Jews were under her table, meaning under the floor, but the Nazis misunderstood. She told the truth, the other people misunderstood. Thus, understanding does not have to do with lying.

So far, we have intent but not understanding as part of lying.

The last sticky issue is "half-truths," or statements given as true with the intention to mislead. The Triune God does not do this. He does give answers people cannot hope to understand, but then He is God so people should expect that (if you think you can understand God totally, then you certaintly are confused). This concept of misleading would be the sticky issue. The intent is to not convey what the other person is looking for, but yet truth is still issued. Can a truth ever be a lie?

I would define a lie as something false that was said in order to deceive. Hence, using the truth to confuse is not a lie, as it is the truth.

Xmansmommy
November 19th, 2002, 06:19 PM
I'd like to know what exactly is the difference between deceiving someone and lying to them? I view deception as a lie too. But perhaps I'm wrong. I can think of a few places in scripture where deception was tolerated by God with no "chastisment." For example, Abraham lying about Sarai being his sister and not his wife. (Gen 12:11-20) And this same thing was done again by Isaac regarding Rebekah (Gen 26:6-11) Also when Jacob stole Esau's birthright and blessing(matter of fact, Jacob flat out lied here)....just food for thought.

Grace and peace,
Linda

Dee Dee Warren
November 19th, 2002, 06:20 PM
First off, lying would not include intended deception, such as during war or during a game, as intentionally misleading someone in those circumstances is EXPECTED.

I don't disagree Jaltus, but prove that statement from the Bible. You will find no such explicit exception in the Bible, and thus, you have opened Pandora's box with that one and assisted me in proving my point. And I noticed that no one has dealt with the Romans 13 issue (amongst others that I have brought forth). With the dodging that is going on here, I would think I had a bunch of futurists cornered wherein I would have to insist upon a quote and answer format to keep everyone from chasing their own tails.

Jaltus
November 19th, 2002, 06:28 PM
Romans 13? I must have missed that. Where is it?

As for proving that lying does not include war time tactics, I'd say look at a dictionary, Greek English Hebrew or other. You are making up a definition for lying that does not exist in any language. Sorry, but that is bogus. You are trying to win by defiing the problem to fit your slant, which is a false method of working. You are making a lexical fallacy here.

Jaltus
November 19th, 2002, 06:29 PM
Also, Sarai was Abraham's sister, half sister. Abraham's father (Haran, IIRC) adopted her.

Jaltus
November 19th, 2002, 06:34 PM
Ahh, ok, the Romans 13 "escape clause." I gotcha now.

The problem is that you are taking a single text. The Bible interprets the Bible, does it not? If you work canonically, you will see that "we must obey God rather than men." Romans 13 does not supercede Acts 5:29.

We all know that we must try to have the character of God. We also know that "God...does not lie," Titus 1:2. No matter what your definition of lying is, we know that GOD CANNOT LIE, so your definition better take that into account, or else give up the Bible as authoritative.

Xmansmommy
November 19th, 2002, 06:37 PM
Also, Sarai was Abraham's sister, half sister. Abraham's father (Haran, IIRC) adopted her.
So half-truths don't constitute a lie? I guess I have a lot to learn :confused: What about Jacob lying to Isaac? Was that a lie or just a half truth as well?

Dee Dee Warren
November 19th, 2002, 06:39 PM
BTW - though I cannot respond in full right now... now that you have found where I mentioned Romans 13 (which I will deal with more indepth) you should read again more carefully where in fact I did define the Biblical sin of lying as immoral deception. You have even conceded that not all deception is immoral, and thus have conceded my point in principle. We now just disagree on the scope of what is immoral deception and benign or even moral deception, but the cat is already out of the bag. Not all deception is immoral, thus not all deception is sinful.

Jaltus
November 19th, 2002, 09:21 PM
Xmansmommy,

I did not say it was a good thing, I was just pointing out that she was in fact his sister.

Which demonstrates my point about God not endorsing lies, just allowing them, much like how sin happens at all. Remember, the OT is a battle against idolatry more than anything else.

Dee Dee,

I am glad you are proud of yourself, but if you ever read any of my posts before you would have seen that I am but being consistent with my own hermeneutic. It is your shifting definition of "lying" that is the problem. Ever since the last thread I have maintained the same thing. Lying is intentionally telling untruth in order to deceive. Telling truth in order to deceive is sneaky, but is nowhere condemned in the Bible. After all, Jesus was the truth, but that does not mean all are saved (think about it, Jesus as truth means He is the only truth, but not all accept Him, many decide on untruth instead of truth, which does not mean Jesus lied, only that they were somehow deceived).

I have not maintained deception as sinful, only the telling of untruth. You say that the telling of untruth is ok. THAT is the disagreement.

mindlight
November 20th, 2002, 02:06 AM
<<<<<<<Mindlight you have stated that the end justifies the means. I thought that concept was alien to Christian beliefs but apparently I was wrong. However this is the foundation for the belief that there is no absolute morality. You can justify any immoral act if the results are good enough with this philosophy.>>>>>>>>>>

Actually I have never stated that THE end justifies THE means. That is to make an abstraction out of something which should be taken case by case within the boundaries set by scripture. What I have done is share Biblical examples of when "lying" was apparently OK and when it clearly was not.

One thing I have noticed about this forum even amongst people who I might tend to agree with is the abstract/academic way in which they speak of concrete things. Everyone is looking for Universals and philosophical absolutes and glorying in their own ability to argue the logic of their positions. I do not think the Bible is written in that kind of language. There are proverbs which apply in some circumstances and others which apply in others. There is narrative and Psalms which inspire and law which directs and provides clear boundaries but this style of arguing philosophical absolutes smacks of medieval scholasticism of the humanistic philosphising of the Greeks and the vain attempts of finite and limited intellects to box and label God into a nice convenient and controllable package.

Dee Dee Warren
November 20th, 2002, 03:52 AM
Dear Jaltus:


It is your shifting definition of "lying" that is the problem.

That comment, ironically enough, is not true. I challenge you to prove from comments made in this thread that my definition has shifted at all. My definition has ALWAYS been that the Biblical sin of lying is immoral deception. I have been upfront about that, so prove that comment or retract it.


I am glad you are proud of yourself

And it would be helpful if you explained this polemical nonsense as well.

Dee Dee Warren
November 20th, 2002, 04:33 AM
Actually I have never stated that THE end justifies THE means. That is to make an abstraction out of something which should be taken case by case within the boundaries set by scripture. What I have done is share Biblical examples of when "lying" was apparently OK and when it clearly was not.

In a summary form, exactly.


There are proverbs which apply in some circumstances and others which apply in others.

And ditto to that as well.

bill betzler
November 20th, 2002, 04:38 AM
Goodbye Dee Dee.

Dee Dee Warren
November 20th, 2002, 04:41 AM
Goodbye Bill, perhaps some other day or on some other subject. Peace and blessings to you and yours and may God's face shine upon you.

bill betzler
November 20th, 2002, 05:32 AM
Gen 27:24 And he said, Art thou my very son Esau? And he said, I am.

Gen 48:17 And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right
hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and
he held up his father's hand, to remove it from
Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head.
18 And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father:
for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his
head.
19 And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I
know it: he also shall become a people, and he also
shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be
greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude
of nations.
20 And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall
Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as
Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh.


Another thought generated by similar stories that we all know about.

In Gen 28 we see Jacob lying and using deceit to accomplish God's will for the blessing to go through him. This was a total lack of faith on Jacob's part and he paid the price by serving Laben. We see a simple solution in Gen 48 to the same problem when it is Jacob's turn to bless the children of Joseph.

Dee Dee Warren
November 20th, 2002, 06:33 AM
Are you retracting that one really dumb comment??

bill betzler
November 20th, 2002, 11:32 AM
No. I didn't know that you were speaking for everyone here. I was just seeing if anyone else wanted to talk. Is that ok?

I know Clinton is a sinner. Why did you even throw that into the mix? I know I evaded the question. If you want to discuss his sex life then be prepared to type the defining words.

Hank
November 20th, 2002, 12:23 PM
By mindlight


Actually I have never stated that THE end justifies THE means. That is to make an abstraction out of something which should be taken case by case within the boundaries set by scripture. What I have done is share Biblical examples of when "lying" was apparently OK and when it clearly was not.
Mindlight you did state the following:

Rahabs end was to protect the lives of the men in her house who served the true God and his people and she did so at the risk of her own life. She deceives deceived men and is praised for it. Her end is justified by her means. Indeed to have spoken the truth would have probably been a sin in this case.

David deceives Achish and thereby strengthens the kingdom God had given him and annointed him to rule. His end justified his means.
I think you can see how I was under the impression that you thought the end justified the means since you started that was the case for at least one case and implied that for David’s case. So why don’t you just clarify your belief for me. Do you believe the end justifies the means or even that sometimes the end justifies the means?

Dee Dee Warren
November 20th, 2002, 12:28 PM
No. I didn't know that you were speaking for everyone here. I was just seeing if anyone else wanted to talk. Is that ok?

Sure that is okay... I guess I just was hopeful that over the passage of time the extreme boneheadedness of that comment would have sunk in. I know that has happened many times to me, so I was wondering if it had with you. It is remarkable that you still think it was a peachy thing to say.


I know Clinton is a sinner. Why did you even throw that into the mix? I know I evaded the question. If you want to discuss his sex life then be prepared to type the defining words.

And you compound the nonsense. I threw that into the mix because I was testing your consistency, and you have proven reluctant to carry your ideas to their logical consequence, which should alert you that there is something wrong with your ideas. You evaded the question because it showed a flaw in your reasoning. If your view cannot stand up to the tough issues, there is something wrong with your view. Are you daring to claim that his words were somehow unclear?? Do you have the audicity to claim in context that he was referring to conversation!!!! for Pete's sake??? Pluheeeaaseee. That is beyond ridiculous. Sceptics laugh when we Christians dance the semantical jig in that manner.

Hank
November 20th, 2002, 12:33 PM
By Dee Dee

And I noticed that no one has dealt with the Romans 13 issue (amongst others that I have brought forth). With the dodging that is going on here, I would think I had a bunch of futurists cornered wherein I would have to insist upon a quote and answer format to keep everyone from chasing their own tails.

And I noticed that you have not dealt with any of the comments I made regarding your post to me.:)

Dee Dee Warren
November 20th, 2002, 12:34 PM
Dear Hank:

You are correct, and I am working on it. I am sorry if I jumped ahead to some other things that I could post quickly. There are points both you and Jaltus made that I am working on (but there are multiple points I have made that you have not responded to as well - but that is okay - you never promised you would).

RunnerOnAir
November 20th, 2002, 01:34 PM
Contrary to popular opinion... lying is never righteous.
Contrary to popular opinion, neither is letting a madman kill your family. This is basic Kantian ethics, not Scriptural ethics.

bill betzler
November 20th, 2002, 05:03 PM
Dee Dee, you really humor me.

If I give you scriptures, you dismiss them out of hand with an editorial wave. No explanation, just that they don't measure up to your preordained concepts. But you are willing to argue the points on Clinton. You assume I even know the stories about Clinton, How do you know that I know what you are talking about? I picked scriptures so we would have a common reference. Will you gain some victory if I acknowledge Clinton did lie to the American people?

My theology here is consistent up to and including through my death. You havn't damaged my theology and you really haven't attacked it very well.

Your hierarchal morality really isn't so profound. It does exist and has temporal validity for dispensing justice. But upon the death of the human, all those hierarchal sins are clumped together and cause everlasting death. I dare say that there will be little comfort (more tolerable) for the damned knowing that the sin that condemned them was not very high on the temporal hierarchy list. That is why your hierarchal list is dismissed when you look at the bigger picture.

P.s thank you for the sweet words you spoke for me and mine.
:)

You are fiesty and have a following. Lead them down the right path. No lies.

Dee Dee Warren
November 20th, 2002, 05:14 PM
Dear Bill:

I will respond to some of your points, and I beg your forgiveness for any unneeded offense. I think you know that. I reiterate as well as you have done to me, there is no real animosity, just spirited debate. We are brother and sister in Christ, and I don't think there will be a partition in heaven between those who agree with me, and those who agree with you. :)

Jaltus
November 20th, 2002, 07:21 PM
Dee Dee,

Your shifting is with respect to this:

It is a fact that this text specifically mentions that God blessed these women without any censure of their lie, and in fact specific commendation of their faith (i.e. they feared God). That would be odd indeed if their lie was grievous in the sight of God. The assumption that they are doing "immoral deception" is in fact countered if God praises them for it. If lying is something that God would censure them for, meaning the immoral deception, then you say God allows and praises immorality. Either what they do is condoned by God or else it is immoral deception. You cannot have it both ways. Of course, attributing praise for immoral deception by God is tantamount to saying God praises evil.

If you think that is the case, then salvation is no longer a possibility. I'll let you fill in the gaps.

The pride comment was meant sarcastic. You attack my in one post and then talk about your own dearth of a response WHILE ATTACKING me for not responding. Hypocritical, I would say. Taking pride in hypocrasy is something which should be frowned upon.

Dee Dee Warren
November 20th, 2002, 07:30 PM
Dear Jaltus:

You have totally misrepresented what I have said. My whole point has been that their deception was moral!! How could you actually read everything that I have said and miss that? Thus, most of the remainder of your comments are a strawman bonfire, entertaining, but not illuminating.

If you want to see hypocrisy in acknowledging that I have another project to finish before I can post a substantive response, while at the same time berating what was already supposed to be substantive responses to something I posted earlier, you are whacky. If you have other pressing concerns, that would certainly be respected by me. You never indicated that, but in fact, your comments are completely irrelevant. Hank was asking when I would respond to his latest post... I already responded to his earlier post... and it was my earlier post that I was commenting has not been responded to in full by anyone opposing my position. That is not at all hypocritical. Casting around the phrase hypocrisy like pinata candy is something which should be frowned upon, and is beneath you entirely. But you do seem to get a bit oochy sometimes when cornered. That's okay. Oochiness can be fun.

Dee Dee Warren
November 20th, 2002, 07:36 PM
You attack my in one post and then talk about your own dearth of a response WHILE ATTACKING me for not responding.

What I actually said was...


I don't disagree Jaltus, but prove that statement from the Bible. You will find no such explicit exception in the Bible, and thus, you have opened Pandora's box with that one and assisted me in proving my point. And I noticed that no one has dealt with the Romans 13 issue (amongst others that I have brought forth). With the dodging that is going on here, I would think I had a bunch of futurists cornered wherein I would have to insist upon a quote and answer format to keep everyone from chasing their own tails.

So, Jaltus, I give you an “A” in hyperbole. If you think that is attacking, then you have a sensitivity issue. That post is hardly “attacking.” And here is my brutal attack of YOU for not responding…


And I noticed that no one has dealt with the Romans 13 issue (amongst others that I have brought forth).

Ouch!! How ever could I be so downright mean and attacking – (notice that it warranted ALL CAPS in your post)?? Come on now, Jaltus. Don’t be a drama major. I didn’t even mention you specifically but was referring to everyone on this thread that is taking the opposing view.

Jaltus
November 20th, 2002, 08:04 PM
Dee Dee,

If their deception was moral, then it was not lying according to your definition.

THAT is where the slide comes in, you define a word and then DO NOT USE that definition.

As for the attacking, I overstated. My apologies (I rushed through and attacking was the only word coming to mind, my comp keeps crashing as I type, so rushing through to get a post in while my browser is still up, not an excuse, just an aside).

Dee Dee Warren
November 20th, 2002, 08:07 PM
Dear Jaltus:


If their deception was moral, then it was not lying according to your definition.

THAT is where the slide comes in, you define a word and then DO NOT USE that definition.

I will make myself much more clear in a followup post. But in brief, I still say they lied, but did not commit the Biblical sin of lying which is immoral deception. They committed moral deception, which is still lying, but it is not sinful lying. Just as their is sinful and not sinful anger and sinful and not sinful hatred.


As for the attacking, I overstated. My apologies (I rushed through and attacking was the only word coming to mind, my comp keeps crashing as I type, so rushing through to get a post in while my browser is still up, not an excuse, just an aside).

Apology accepted, and I apologize for my dripping sarcasm.

Jaltus
November 20th, 2002, 08:09 PM
NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR SARCASM! I love it.

Say deceived instead of lied. Lying is what is in question, specifically the definition of it, so using it to define it is circular.

Dee Dee Warren
November 20th, 2002, 08:11 PM
I will get into that more in my substantive post.

Dee Dee Warren
November 20th, 2002, 08:12 PM
NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR SARCASM! I love it.


Then you must be fond of me beyond belief. Remember, I am married.

Dee Dee Warren
November 21st, 2002, 06:20 AM
Okay now on to address some objections.

First, again to make it painfully clear. My position is that the Biblical sin of “lying” is simply immoral deception. Of course that means necessarily that there is deception (i.e. lying) that is not immoral. Everyone here has already conceded to that fact. We have all agreed that deception in war and sports plays is not immoral. I think we would all agree that deception in altering one’s physical appearance by wearing a toupee is not immoral, though hair plugs certainly are ;) However, in this concession that there is outright deception that is not immoral, the very title of this thread is invalidated. Not all lying (which is by definition – deception) is unrighteous.

Now some here have attempted to equivocate by saying that not all deception is lying. That does not relieve the difficulty for that same scenario also plays right into my hand. Once it is conceded that not all deception is immoral, or that not all deception is lying, I have won a major point. All I have to say at that point then is the Rahab’s deception was the moral kind as was the midwives. All that has been done is a sleight of hand switcheroo in which the terms immoral and lying are made equal and the term deception is rendered equivocal. It is a semantical distinction that makes no real difference in this discussion…. A rose by another name……. as I will go on to further prove.

However, though, along these lines, I was invited to look at a dictionary. Okay, I accept that invitation.

Here is the dictionary definition of “lie”:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Or here is one which is exactly what I have been saying all along:

To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; to say or do that which is intended to deceive another, when he a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation.
(Webster's Revised
Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)

Here are the synonyms:

be untruthful, beguile, break promise, bull, con, concoct, deceive, delude, dissemble, dissimulate, distort, dupe, equivocate, exaggerate, fabricate, fake, falsify, fib, forswear, frame, fudge, invent, jazz, jive, make believe, malign, misguide, misinform, misinstruct, mislead, misrepresent, misspeak, misstate, overdraw, palter, perjure, pervert, phony up, plant, prevaricate, promote, put on, queer, snow, soft-soap, string along, victimize

(Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)

Notice that “deceive” is synonymous with “lie,” thus the hair-splitting that has been attempted just doesn’t fly. Generally speaking, lying is deceiving, deceiving is lying. Thus, it ispatently obviously there is lying that is not sinful, it is at least morally benign, and I would argue at times, morally righteous.

Also note that by definition lying is not restricted to just uttering an outright falsehood by any action which is intended to mislead another. Thus a true statement can still be a lie, despite the gerrymandering here to say otherwise.

In the Biblical text, it is defined similarly…

Shaqar (Hebrew) – to do or deal falsely, be false, trick, cheat

Sheqer (Hebrew) - lie, deception, disappointment, falsehood

1a) deception (what deceives or disappoints or betrays one)

1b) deceit, fraud, wrong

1b1) fraudulently, wrongfully (as adverb)

1c) falsehood (injurious in testimony)

1c1) testify falsehood, false oath, swear falsely

1d) falsity (of false or self-deceived prophets)

1e) lie, falsehood (in general)

1e1) false tongue

1f) in vain

Kazab (Hebrew) - a lie, untruth, falsehood,
deceptive thing

1) to lie, tell a lie, be a liar, be found a liar, be in vain, fail

1a) (Qal) liar (participle)

1b) (Niphal) to be proven to be lying

1c) (Piel)

1c1) to lie, tell a lie, tell a lie with, deceive

1c2) to disappoint, fail

1d) (Hiphil) to make a liar, prove to be a liar

Pseudos (Greek) -

1) a lie

2) conscious and intentional falsehood

3) in a broad sense, whatever is not what it seems to be

4) 3a) of perverse, impious, deceitful precepts


Psuedomai (Greek) -

1) to lie, to speak deliberate falsehoods

2) to deceive one by a lie, to lie to

Again, the words “lie” and “deceive” are synonymous in many cases (there may be some subtleties that are not germane to this discussion).

The equivocating of any differences between lying and deception though is crushed by the Biblical text in any event. They are both stated as being sinful and to be avoided (if one is taking the position advocated by the opening post) .

Leviticus 19:11, “Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another.”

The fact is that the Biblical sin of lying is tied into the Biblical ideas of justice and equity which are the cornerstone of truth. Certain lying is wrong because it violates those principles. There are certain times when telling the “truth” would be wrong if it violated those underlying principles which the NT summarizes even further as love (Romans 13:10). The Biblical concept of truth is not merely the sterile reciting of correct data, it is the administration of justice, mercy, equity, and love. For nonexhaustive examples:

Deut. 32:4: He is the Rock. His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice.

(and note that the above verse neatly explains how it is perfectly within God’s character, who does not lie, to use lies in the administration of His justice… God does not immorally lie, but He has instructed, and commended, and used moral lies)

Ps 106:3 – Blessed are they who maintain justice, who constantly do what is right.

Is 1:15-17 – When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.

Hab. 1:3-4 – Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds. Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.[/B]

Zech 7:9 – [I]This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.’

Matthew 23:23 – But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.

Now onto to some specific comments made here:

By Jaltus:


We all know that we must try to have the character of God. We also know that "God...does not lie," Titus 1:2. No matter what your definition of lying is, we know that GOD CANNOT LIE, so your definition better take that into account, or else give up the Bible as authoritative.

I have explained that above. God does not immorally deceive (i.e. lie). You are assuming that is the only meaning that can be poured into that word. My definition of the Biblical sin of lying certainly DOES take that into account.

I had also made a point about Romans 13 as follows:



The Bible tells us to obey those placed in authority over us (Ecclesiastes 8:2; Romans 13). These texts do not give any “escape clause,” for all intents and purposes, in a superficial “low context” reading of the text, it is an unbreakable absolute. Yet not only is this highly counter-intuitive, it would cause a contradiction in the text, for in
Acts 5:29, we are told to obey God rather than man. Why didn’t Paul mention this condition?? Because in the “high context” Biblical structure and culture, it was obvious.

To which Jaltus replied:


Ahh, ok, the Romans 13 "escape clause." I gotcha now. The problem is that you are taking a single text. The Bible interprets the Bible, does it not? If you work canonically, you will see that "we must obey God rather than men." Romans 13 does not supercede Acts 5:29.

Jaltus did not interact with my point at all, which was, that opponents of my position keep pointing to passages which condemn lying without mentioning any exceptions or narrowing of definition. So, I point to two passages which mention that we should obey our rulers without mentioning any exceptions. Yes, Acts 5:29, then makes explicit an exception, but Paul nor Solomon never did in their direct addresses on this subject. I make the point that within the contextual framework of the Bible, they did not need to, because it would be obvious to the audience that greater moral imperatives would trump this one moral imperative. The fact that Acts 5:29 grants an “exception” shows that obedience to our rulers is in fact a standard that must be weighed relative to our circumstances.
This is a Biblical paradigm that can be then applied to other moral dilemmas in typical “remez” (Jewish interpretative analogy) fashion.

Now to Hank I had made the point:


Relativism teaches that morals are relative to the person. In any given identical situation, what is moral for you to do, may not be moral for me to do. There is no absolute rule by which to objectively measure our actions. That is not at all what I have advocated here. I am applying an ABSOLUTE hierarchy of morals which would be applied ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENTLY. As Koukl has put it, “Moral relativism doesn’t have to do with relative circumstances, it has to do with relative people,” and this distinction makes a world of difference, i.e. the difference between Biblical and unbiblical moral functioning. Biblical morality upholds a standard that is outside of and binding upon all persons.

To which Hank replied:


Dee Dee by saying this you are saying that no matter what action you want to consider, you can find a worse action. Therefore you can justify anything if you can just describe something worse. This reminds me of the battle between Knight and Zak where Knight kept using an example that was what everyone would have thought was immoral. Zak just thought up a more immoral reason for why he was forced into doing the immoral action and Knight cried foul as if this didn’t apply for some reason. And if that can be done, then nothing is absolutely immoral because it can be caused by something even more immoral. In other words, it’s all relative.

Now first, I want to point out that Hank’s original accusation towards me is that what I was advocating was the definition of relativism. I disproved that and showed that Hank did not really understand what relativism was, at least by standard definition today. I thought he would then concede that error, but he did not. Instead he sets a straw man ablaze. In fact, Hank is gored on his own argument, for if one can propose something that is more immoral, that means there is an outside absolute standard for morality by which we are measuring the morality of the choices within the situation with which we are faced. However, though, the premise of his entire argument is flawed in the real world outside of hypotheticals. The “control” scenario or the “worse” option is not something that we choose, rather it is inherent to the moral dilemma with which we are faced. The only thing we are morally constrained to choose is the something “better” as measured in light of the something “worse” that is forced upon us. For example, the external circumstance that the midwives were faced with was the immoral command to murder the Hebrew baby boys and the implicit threat to their own lives. They chose the greater good of using moral deception to save lives.

Hank then asked:



You have never answered my question so I’ll ask again. Do you believe that the end justifies the means?
That is a statement that means very little without further clarification. Let’s say I want a new pair of shoes which (despite the opinion of some men) is a very good goal. I go into the store and steal them. I achieve a good goal, but the means that I use is not justified by that, for the means, as judged by the external standards of morality that the Bible puts upon us in light of the specific moral scenario, was immoral. I can only determine that this action was immoral if I have an absolute outside standard which must be then applied to each moral situation.

The ends justifies the means in EVERY situation. Say, I was cold and needed a fire. I could light up a stack of money (for I am so filthy rich that money means nothing to me) or I could light some firewood. It would be immoral for me to light up the money when it could be used for much more righteous purposes. If you need to go to the store, you could drive your car, or you could frivolously rent a stretch limousine. The intended goal would justify or illegitimize the means you use to reach it, that is true for every situation.

Jaltus also commented:


First off, lying would not include intended deception, such as during war or during a game, as intentionally misleading someone in those circumstances is EXPECTED….. Thus, expectation would be part of the definition of lying.


I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but I do disagree with the route you took to get there. Are you saying that morality depends upon the expectations of the people involved?? Your reasoning would make lying by a known liar acceptable since everyone expects them to lie. I agree that the Biblical sin of lying does not include those above items. You are trying to seek some solace by calling those actions “deceptions” rather than lies, but that is simply semantics. They are untruths, but they are morally benign.


Telling someone a truth which is not what they meant, though fulfills the question is not lying, such as the little girl telling the Nazis that the Jews were under her table, meaning under the floor, but the Nazis misunderstood. She told the truth, the other people misunderstood. Thus, understanding does not have to do with lying.

That is an irrelevant example. Her intent was to spill the beans, but the Nazi’s misunderstood. Jesus made it clear that we are often judged by intents of the heart rather than actual outcomes, so her intent to reveal the location of the Jews was immoral (without getting into the moral accountability of children).


The last sticky issue is "half-truths," or statements given as true with the intention to mislead….. This concept of misleading would be the sticky issue. The intent is to not convey what the other person is looking for, but yet truth is still issued. Can a truth ever be a lie?

This brings us back to Bill Clinton (and Bill B. if you really don’t know what I am talking about, PM me and I will explain to you what happened). According to you, what he did (“I did not have intercourse with that woman”) was not a lie or wrong. Are you willing to be that consistent?


I would define a lie as something false that was said in order to deceive. Hence, using the truth to confuse is not a lie, as it is the truth.

Then I guess we were all hard on Slick Willy for no reason at all. And who is making up their own definitions?? See above lexigraphical information to show that it is not me. Something does not have to false on its face to be lie or a deception. Say you have a standing rule that your teenage son cannot attend parties. He tells you that he is just going over to his friends house to hang out with some friends. He does not tell you those friends are throwing a party. He has lied to you (deceived you) with a true statement. The Bible clearly recognizes sins of omission (James 4:17) as well as commission. By your reasoning, technically, Annais and Saphira did not lie. They did sell their land for that amount, they just didn’t say that they sold it for that amount + (x).


I have not maintained deception as sinful, only the telling of untruth. You say that the telling of untruth is ok. THAT is the disagreement.

Orwell would be proud. That makes no sense whatsoever. So it is okay for me to deceive people as long as I devise a way to use truthful (but incomplete – is that then really truthful??) statements to do it. I would never go into business with someone with that philosophy.

Now Bill had said that I merely hand-waved his Scriptures away. Hardly. It is he who has not dealt with mine. The reason that I have not answered his point about whether or not Rahab possessed eternal life is because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is that she is praised for faith because of her actions with the spies (which included her lie), and is never chastised for her lie. What is relevant is that both before and after the lie, the midwives are praised for their fear (which requires faith and trust) of God with no chastisement for their lie. This is just like the Romans 13 situation. Paul makes no exception to his rule, but in Acts we see there is an exception. It is the same situation here, we have Biblical examples of righteous lies. The prima facie case is mine.

Yxboom
November 21st, 2002, 07:30 AM
Liar.

Dee Dee Warren
November 21st, 2002, 08:13 AM
Your weakness is my sweetness.... or something like that.

Jaltus
November 21st, 2002, 09:09 AM
Ahh, Dee Dee, your fallacies are all over the place.

First off, YOU defined Lying as deception. There is a world of different between telling a falsehood and deceiving, for one can deceive with the truth as well. My point, and your definitions back me up quite well, is that the lying condemned in the Bible is telling falsehoods in order to deceive. Telling truth in order to deceive is nowhere condemned.

Let me quote a definition back at you:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Notice it is a FALSEHOOD that must be spoken, whereas deception DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FALSE according to the definitions you laid out.

My objection is and always has been that one cannot tell an untruth and still be right in God's eyes. This is the point you keep missing, or else you try to make lying = deception when they have different semantic domains.

By the way, the Greek YEUDA (pseuda) means FALSE, it always refers to telling an untruth.

The part that is the problem between us is you keep saying "moral deception," can an untrue statement ever be moral? I would say no, and I would also say that Jesus entire being screams no, as He was and is the TRUTH.

How is this, AN UNTRUTH CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED OR CONSIDERED PRAISEWORTHY BY GOD.

That is an absolute statement I will stand by as being biblically valid and validated.

bill betzler
November 21st, 2002, 10:33 AM
Would Mrs Prima Facie mind if I commented on her post?

Hank
November 21st, 2002, 07:45 PM
Now first, I want to point out that Hank’s original accusation towards me is that what I was advocating was the definition of relativism. I disproved that and showed that Hank did not really understand what relativism was, at least by standard definition today.
You only showed that I did not define relativism like your limited definition of relativism you would like to use. I’m not sure who defines the standard definition but I am arguing that your definition allows for no absolute immorality.

I thought he would then concede that error, but he did not. Instead he sets a straw man ablaze. In fact, Hank is gored on his own argument, for if one can propose something that is more immoral, that means there is an outside absolute standard for morality by which we are measuring the morality of the choices within the situation with which we are faced.
I don’t know how I am gored by my own argument since I believe there is an outside absolute standard for morality and have never argued against that. You are the one that’s arguing that lying is sometimes immoral and sometime moral depending on when and how it is used.

However, though, the premise of his entire argument is flawed in the real world outside of hypotheticals. The “control” scenario or the “worse” option is not something that we choose, rather it is inherent to the moral dilemma with which we are faced.
There is no moral dilemma when you believe in absolute morality. You have a standard to live too. If something is immoral, then it is immoral all the time, not just compared to something else.

The only thing we are morally constrained to choose is the something “better” as measured in light of the something “worse” that is forced upon us.
Sorry Dee Dee, this is again a good working definition of relative morality whether you want to accept it or not. Nothing is absolute, it’s just measured against something worse as you stated.

For example, the external circumstance that the midwives were faced with was the immoral command to murder the Hebrew baby boys and the implicit threat to their own lives. They chose the greater good of using moral deception to save lives.
I understand what you are arguing and what you have argued from the very beginning. That almost any immoral act is justified to save a life. I am arguing that God has a plan for our lives and for the world in general. When we act immorally for any reason we are basically saying that we do not believe God can enact his plan unless we act immorally to “help” him out. I believe that to be false.


Hank then asked:
quote:


You have never answered my question so I’ll ask again. Do you believe that the end justifies the means?


That is a statement that means very little without further clarification.

Almost everyone understands what this means and it’s very simple. Are immoral acts justified if the accomplishment is something you think is better than the immoral act.


Let’s say I want a new pair of shoes which (despite the opinion of some men) is a very good goal. I go into the store and steal them. I achieve a good goal, but the means that I use is not justified by that, for the means, as judged by the external standards of morality that the Bible puts upon us in light of the specific moral scenario, was immoral. I can only determine that this action was immoral if I have an absolute outside standard which must be then applied to each moral situation.

And what if you steal a pair of shoes because you don’t have any and need some. Does the end then justify the means.


The ends justifies the means in EVERY situation.

I’m assuming that you mean you take every action and judge it against what will be the immediate results. Then if the immediate results somehow outweighs (and how do you determine this?) the immoral act the it is moral. Did I read you wrong?


Say, I was cold and needed a fire. I could light up a stack of money (for I am so filthy rich that money means nothing to me) or I could light some firewood. It would be immoral for me to light up the money when it could be used for much more righteous purposes. If you need to go to the store, you could drive your car, or you could frivolously rent a stretch limousine. The intended goal would justify or illegitimize the means you use to reach it, that is true for every situation.

How about sacrificing 10 innocent lives because it would probably save 20 innocent lives? How would you weigh that?

Dee Dee Warren
November 21st, 2002, 07:59 PM
Dear Jaltus:


Ahh, Dee Dee, your fallacies are all over the place.
So you say, but have yet to prove, or even interact meaningfully with my main thrusts. :P ( ß- does that remind you of anyone)


First off, YOU defined Lying as deception.

Really?? Where are all my royalty checks since I presented several dictionaries that agreed with me. I didn’t ask you to take just my word and basic common sense for it.


There is a world of different between telling a falsehood and deceiving, for one can deceive with the truth as well.

That makes no sense Jaltus. That is like saying there is a world of difference between hand-sewing with a needle and stitching because one can stitch with a sewing machine as well. The end result is the same and that is the point. You point of view is saying that it is okay to knowingly deceive someone as long as you are sneaky enough to devise a way to manipulate a true statement to do so.

You have doggedly avoided the six million dollar question: Was Bill Clinton wrong or sinning when he said, “I did not have intercourse with that woman.”?? How consistent are you going to be??


My point, and your definitions back me up quite well, is that the lying condemned in the Bible is telling falsehoods in order to deceive. Telling truth in order to deceive is nowhere condemned.

Actually my definitions prove you incorrect, as anyone going back and reading them can readily see. And you are arguing in a circle, I gave you two examples of telling falsehoods in order to deceive that are not condemned, and in fact are praised (Rahab and the midwives). You are assuming your point to prove your point. And you are wrong that telling truth in order to deceive is nowhere condemned because I cited:

Leviticus 19:11, “Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another.”


Let me quote a definition back at you:
quote:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

Notice it is a FALSEHOOD that must be spoken, whereas deception DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FALSE according to the definitions you laid out.

Really?? Let me quote part two of that same definition back at you:

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.


How is this, AN UNTRUTH CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED OR CONSIDERED PRAISEWORTHY BY GOD.

See the Hebrew midwives and Rahab. Yet you want us to believe that deception is peachy with God as long as we manipulate a true statement to attain our deception. Again, I would not want anyone with that point of view as a business partner.

“Hey Jaltus, before I sign off on this contract, I see that the business has some outstanding debts. Have those been paid?”

“Dee Dee, I mailed out the checks to them this morning.” All the while knowing that the checks would bounce. Well you did tell a falsehood now did you?? You did mail the checks, it was just that pesky little bit of information that you withheld from me that the mailed checks were worthless. But hey, according to you, this would not be immoral or a lie.

Dee Dee Warren
November 22nd, 2002, 04:13 AM
Dear Hank:


You only showed that I did not define relativism like your limited definition of relativism you would like to use. I’m not sure who defines the standard definition but I am arguing that your definition allows for no absolute immorality.

My alleged limited definition is the philosophical definition in use today. I am using the generally accepted definition of relativism within the field of moral philosophy and the one used by its adherents. You made the claim that what I was saying was the very definition of relativism…. it turns out that you meant it was your very own definition of moral relativism which is illegitimate then to use polemically against me. It is telling to me that you cannot concede this point. There are many points of view that I disagree with, but I make sure when representing them, criticizing them, I define and represent them fairly. Your very wide tar brush of painting in with the moral relativists is unfair, and not accurate. You should retract that original comment. You may fairly try to argue and prove that the end result is the same, but my starting presuppositions are vastly different.


I don’t know how I am gored by my own argument since I believe there is an outside absolute standard for morality and have never argued against that. You are the one that’s arguing that lying is sometimes immoral and sometime moral depending on when and how it is used.

You appear to have missed the point then if you don’t see how you have defeated your own argument. If you agree that we agree that there is one absolute standard for morality than you have conceded that I am not a moral relativists and that my view does not entail the lack of absolutes. Our argument, fairly defined, is whether all moral imperatives apply equally in all situations. I gave one such example of the command to submit to the government that is given by Paul and Solomon without qualification, but we learn in Acts, the force of that moral imperative varies depending upon the circumstances. I am saying the same thing with a different moral imperative… if you are not going to accuse the Bible of relativism or of having a lack of moral absolutes with regards to that issue, you cannot fairly do that to me.


There is no moral dilemma when you believe in absolute morality. You have a standard to live too. If something is immoral, then it is immoral all the time, not just compared to something else.

You cannot justify that statement with the moral imperative to submit to the government. It is not always immoral to disobey the government.


Sorry Dee Dee, this is again a good working definition of relative morality whether you want to accept it or not. Nothing is absolute, it’s just measured against something worse as you stated.

Again, you have missed the point. The standard by which we discern better and worse is absolute and would apply equally to all persons in the same situation.


I understand what you are arguing and what you have argued from the very beginning. That almost any immoral act is justified to save a life. I am arguing that God has a plan for our lives and for the world in general. When we act immorally for any reason we are basically saying that we do not believe God can enact his plan unless we act immorally to “help” him out. I believe that to be false.

Well that is not exactly what I have been saying at all, and I gave the two Biblical examples of persons commended for their faith/fear who used deception in the very scenarios that they are praised for. You may not like that, but there it is.


Almost everyone understands what this means and it’s very simple. Are immoral acts justified if the accomplishment is something you think is better than the immoral act.

Some acts are moral or not moral in different situations. The lying of Rahab and the midwives was not a “justified” immoral act, it was a moral act in those circumstances. This has nothing to do about “what I believe” is better as what “you believe” is better may be different… it is about maturely handling moral dilemmas based upon an outside standard to determine moral behavior. It is generally wrong to shove another person. However, if I shove you to the ground, and even injure you, to save you from an incoming car, my battery of you was not a “justified” immoral act, it was a moral act.


And what if you steal a pair of shoes because you don’t have any and need some. Does the end then justify the means.

That is very simplistic. Shoes are not life and death. I would have other ways of obtaining the needed shoes other than steal them though I may be too immorally lazy to work or too immorally proud to ask for charity.


I’m assuming that you mean you take every action and judge it against what will be the immediate results. Then if the immediate results somehow outweighs (and how do you determine this?) the immoral act the it is moral. Did I read you wrong?

Not just the immediate results.. the whole scenario to the best it can be known by us. How do you determine what is the best way to summon your neighbor out of his house…. Well if you just need to borrow a cup of sugar a phone call or knock is appropriate. If his house is on fire, driving your car through his front door might be appropriate, though generally speaking, destroying your neighbor’s property is immoral.


How about sacrificing 10 innocent lives because it would probably save 20 innocent lives? How would you weigh that?

Again a very simplistic statement, and one designed to garner an emotional response. Let me add some details and give a response. I am the ruler of a country. There is some emergency situation and I must decide between one of two situations. One will with all certainty that is possible to be known will result in the death of 20 people, one will result in the death of 10. All other factors are equal. I will take the route that causes less people to die.

Can you concoct a moral dilemna that I will struggle with?? I am sure you can but that does not disprove my points, only that I may have some moral maturing to do, and some more backbone to grow. But I doubt that you are comfortable with your position which would require you to tell the Nazi’s about the Jews in your basement, or the home invader where your wife is hiding so that he can rape and kill her.

Jaltus
November 22nd, 2002, 10:00 AM
Dee Dee,

I have stated TIME AND AGAIN without refutation that neither the midwives nor Rahab were praised for their lies, only for their FAITH. You have yet to prove your erronious assumption. I have also argued that the midwives did in fact not lie, something nobody has seen fit to respond to other than to agree or nuance.

You also cannot take 1 definition without considering the other. My point is that you are taking deception and making it equal to lying, which the dictionaries do not do. There is a difference between a synonym (similar meaning) and having the exact same meaning. Deception means trying to mislead. Lying means misleading through untruth. World of difference.

As for Clinton, he lied because what he did can be categorized as a form of intercourse. He told an untruth.

As for Lev 19:11, it says do not deceive one another, and thus would be limited to the covenant community, as far as I can tell. I agree that you treat the covenant community different than the non-covenant community.

What this amounts to is that I am willing and able to take both definitions of lying and be happy with either, whereas you MUST be stuck with only the second one.

Again, you have NEVER dealt with my argument from God's Own Character, something posted on the original thread that none of you advocates for lying have ever dealt with, and since reposted on this thread (I think).

“Dee Dee, I mailed out the checks to them this morning.” All the while knowing that the checks would bounce. Well you did tell a falsehood now did you?? You did mail the checks, it was just that pesky little bit of information that you withheld from me that the mailed checks were worthless. But hey, according to you, this would not be immoral or a lie.Well, since I would only advocate going into business with a believer, I would not be able to deceive them. You, on the other hand, seem to think that lying can be rightouess in the first place, leaving you no room to talk.

Jaltus
November 22nd, 2002, 10:02 AM
you also never answered my argument from the meaning of the Greek, something you brought up.

Dee Dee Warren
November 22nd, 2002, 10:09 AM
Jaltus.. do you really want a scorecard of allegedly skipped points?? I don't think you do. I refrained from pointing out multiple points you skipped instead just choosing to reuse them again if necessary to the argument, or dropping them if not. I at this point have assumed that you and I have other concerns in life in addition to answering this thread, so I am not insisting on a point by point rebuttal to every single thing. However, since you intent upon a response to that tangential comment, I will make one.

Dee Dee Warren
November 22nd, 2002, 10:14 AM
BTW, though there was a honking glaring inconsistency in your last post that made me smile (and you can imagine my evil preterist hose-beast smile I am sure). Maybe you want to go back and rethink a few things that you said..... I think Hank will see it and go into orbit.

PS... on another note.. can you email me again.. an apologetics friend needs help with a Greek studies question and I was hoping that you could help (DeeDWarren@aol.com)

Jaltus
November 22nd, 2002, 10:14 AM
Dee Dee,

My point was that I was rebutting an argument you made. You can either concede the point or reargue it. I am not frothing at the mouth or anything, just wishing some clarification about whether you agree or not.

Dee Dee Warren
November 22nd, 2002, 10:16 AM
I am not frothing at the mouth or anything, just wishing some clarification about whether you agree or not.

You're not?? Darn.. you just ruined an entertaining mental picture. YX has heard me froth and spit before, so I was thinking that you and I may be kindred souls.. but alas.......

Jaltus
November 22nd, 2002, 10:27 AM
Oh, e-mail sent by the way.

Dee Dee Warren
November 22nd, 2002, 10:29 AM
Got it, and sent one back at you. And yx will tell you that I am very, very finicky about getting responses to emails :)

Jaltus
November 22nd, 2002, 10:35 AM
So, is his head filled with your mail?

Dee Dee Warren
November 22nd, 2002, 10:40 AM
Eeek, I have got to clean this place, large as it is.


For Greek conversion, click here.


Why does that either worry me, or strike me as very funny????

Jaltus
November 22nd, 2002, 10:49 AM
I find it humorous myself, which is why I used the wording.

Dee Dee Warren
November 22nd, 2002, 10:57 AM
Hmmm, will I start craving Baklava??? Will I think naked statues are cool??? Will I have a compulsion to sit through ten showing of My Big Fat Greek Wedding???


Oh and in honor of this thread, I am going to rent Liar, Liar and Big Fat Liar this weekend. It will be a whole lying theme....... but then again, I am an idiot.

Jaltus
November 22nd, 2002, 11:01 AM
LOL.

Knight
November 22nd, 2002, 11:35 AM
Jaltus states...
I have stated TIME AND AGAIN without refutation that neither the midwives nor Rahab were praised for their lies, only for their FAITH.You have got to be kidding me!

How sad that you reject the MAIN part of the story simply to hold on to your weak bankrupt view that "lying is never righteous".

Of course I guess that makes sense coming from someone who actually said the following when I asked on another thread.... "Are you asserting that God would have preferred that the Hebrew midwives NOT lied to the Egyptian King?" And Jaltus responded....
Of course! God worked despite them, not because of them.Jaltus actually thinks that God would have preferred the hebrew midwives NOT have lied to save the Hebrew baby boys!

That is just plain sick! Not to mention blatantly boneheaded. Any normal person with any sense at all would read the following passage and see the heroic deed the midwives did and see the pleasure that God found in them for protecting the baby Hebrew boys....
Exodus 1:17 But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. 18 So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?” 19 And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.” 20 THEREFORE God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. 21 And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them. The above story about God being happy with the Hebrew midwives righteous lie is so incredibly obvious its embarrassing, maybe even blasphemous to assert otherwise.

Dee Dee Warren
November 22nd, 2002, 11:40 AM
Now how dare you actually make sense Knight??? ;) See... I am not crazy. Someone actually agrees with me!!!

Knight
November 22nd, 2002, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Now how dare you actually make sense Knight??? ;) See... I am not crazy. Someone actually agrees with me!!! Well on the other thread Jaltus's best argument was...
I think lying is wrong.

Did Jesus ever lie?Jesus never inflated an inter tube either but that is hardly wrong! ;)

This whole argument is so ridiculous!

Any person who thinks it would be wrong to directly lie to the Nazi's to save a Jewish family hiding in their crawl space is brainless and helps to cement to unbelievers that Christians are irrational.

Dee Dee Warren
November 22nd, 2002, 12:08 PM
Err, Knight, you're holding back, and that just isn't healthy. Say how you really feel?? ;)

I hope to post some more over the weekend......

Jaltus
November 22nd, 2002, 03:16 PM
Anyone who thinks God endorses sin needs to read the Bible.

Point of fact, my basis about Jesus was that HE WAS AND IS THE TRUTH!

Your little inner tube argument is frankly stupid. Inner tubes were not around when Jesus was, but lying was most definitely around.

Knight, either argue intelligently or don't argue at all.

I will also point out YET AGAIN that the midwives did not necessarily state an untruth. It could very well be that sometimes the Hebrews gave birth early. NOTHING IN THE STORY SAYS IT WAS A LIE.

As for Rahab, it says her FAITH saved her, not her lies.

Come on, people, get serious here and deal with some of my theological arguments. So far you are trying to get me to believe that God endorses evil. Why didn't Daniel and the 3 guys lie about praying or bowing down to the idol? Wouldn't that be a righteous lie to save themselves?

NO! It would show a LACK OF FAITH!

Dee Dee Warren
November 22nd, 2002, 03:19 PM
Knight, would you like the honors???

Jaltus
November 22nd, 2002, 03:22 PM
It was directed to Knight, to be honest. He and I never finished this conversation from last time. You could always of course respond to my last substantive post to you, Dee Dee. It is on the previous page.

Dee Dee Warren
November 22nd, 2002, 03:24 PM
I said I would Jaltus... are you that needy for another spanking??

Dee Dee Warren
November 22nd, 2002, 03:25 PM
If you are.. and this is not enough for you... I would be glad to spank you some more on eschatology in the brand spanking new (pun intened) forum area that Knight has opened.

Knight
November 22nd, 2002, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Jaltus
Anyone who thinks God endorses sin needs to read the Bible.Good point, God does not endorse sin.

Sadly this is a straw man argument as we are not discussing whether or not God endorses sin.

You continue...
Point of fact, my basis about Jesus was that HE WAS AND IS THE TRUTH!Stop the presses!!!!

You continue...
Your little inner tube argument is frankly stupid. Inner tubes were not around when Jesus was, but lying was most definitely around.Ya know Jaltus you really do have a thick skull.

You continue...
Knight, either argue intelligently or don't argue at all.Thank you sir may I have another?

You continue...
I will also point out YET AGAIN that the midwives did not necessarily state an untruth. It could very well be that sometimes the Hebrews gave birth early. NOTHING IN THE STORY SAYS IT WAS A LIE.Ugh.... how far will you go to deny plain truth!!!

The midwives told the king a DIRECT lie to save the Hebrew baby boys...
“Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.”I suppose now Jaltus will argue that Hebrew women really DO give birth faster than Egyptian woman?

You continue...
Come on, people, get serious here and deal with some of my theological arguments. So far you are trying to get me to believe that God endorses evil. Huh???

Who asking you to believe that God endorses evil?

The point is.... lying (not telling the truth) is NOT NECESSARILY evil NOR even wrong! Lying is morally neutral. It is the motivation for not telling the truth that can be either wrong or right.

Lying to the wicked to protect some who are innocent when there is no other option is NOT EVIL! In fact, its good! To deny that fact is down right wicked!

Dee Dee Warren
November 22nd, 2002, 05:28 PM
The point is.... lying (not telling the truth) is NOT NECESSARILY evil NOR even wrong! Lying is morally neutral. It is the motivation for not telling the truth that can be either wrong or right.


Great summary statement. This is exactly what I was communicating in my post dealing with the foundation of all of the moral imperatives... justice, mercy, and love.

But here is the kicker Knight.... Jaltus is arguing that God does not endorse lying, but does endores deception. How in the world is that any better??? That is sheer nonsense. I doubt that a person who has been manipulatively deceived by a truth feels any better about it, or any more justly treated than one who has been willingly deceived by a falsehood.

Knight
November 22nd, 2002, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
But here is the kicker Knight.... Jaltus is arguing that God does not endorse lying, but does endores deception. How in the world is that any better???LOL...

Jaltus wants to interject some amount of obfuscation as to be able to hide in his bankrupt and unbiblical position.

You continue...
That is sheer nonsense. I doubt that a person who has been manipulatively deceived by a truth feels any better about it, or any more justly treated than one who has been willingly deceived by a falsehood. Great point !

Yxboom
November 22nd, 2002, 05:49 PM
You guys just keep trying to lie your way out of this.....Well, frankly I don't believe the lot of ya.

Dee Dee Warren
November 22nd, 2002, 05:53 PM
We could just be using the truth to deceive you, and that would be okay.

Dee Dee Warren
November 22nd, 2002, 10:31 PM
Dear Jaltus:


You also cannot take 1 definition without considering the other.

Agreed so why did you do exactly that?? My original post contained both definitions (i.e. the word means either just as legitimately) and you culled it down to the one that suited you. I merely brought up the part you skipped. Here again is the entire definition:

Here is the dictionary definition of “lie”:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

And again, here is one which is exactly what I have been saying all along:

To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; to say or do that which is intended to deceive another, when he a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation. (Webster's Revised

Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)

Thus to lie encompases both deception by falsehood and deception by truth. It is the intention to deceive that makes it a lie. Can you really say with a straight face that it is always morally permissible to deceive someone as long as you manipulate a true statement to do so?? Come on now!!!


What this amounts to is that I am willing and able to take both definitions of lying and be happy with either, whereas you MUST be stuck with only the second one.

On what planet?? You cannot take the second one of either selection for they define using a truth to deceive as lying.


I have stated TIME AND AGAIN without refutation that neither the midwives nor Rahab were praised for their lies, only for their FAITH. You have yet to prove your erronious assumption. I have also argued that the midwives did in fact not lie, something nobody has seen fit to respond to other than to agree or nuance.

That is not accurate for I have refuted that statement, and since this comment Knight has refuted it once again. But hey that old nag is still kicking, so let’s drag out the bats….

First your claim that the midwives did not lie…..

Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?” And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.” Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.

First taking your erroneous limitation on the definition of lying (which I have already disproven above), they are still lying. The text tells us WHY the midwives did not follow the orders…. Because they feared God. Yet when the king asked them WHY they did not kill the babies, they said because the Hebrew woman were fast droppers. That is not why they did not do it, the text says that. So they told a FALSEHOOD.


I will also point out YET AGAIN that the midwives did not necessarily state an untruth. It could very well be that sometimes the Hebrews gave birth early. NOTHING IN THE STORY SAYS IT WAS A LIE.

Man, Slick Willie would be so proud. The king commanded ALL the Hebrew male babies to be killed and wanted to know why this was not done. The context is ALL, not some, not sometimes, not could be. The midwives answered that they could not do it because the woman delivered early…. Not some of the woman, but in context ALL the women. He is asking why ALL of the male children were spared alive, and their answer is simply not true.

As for Clinton, he lied because what he did can be categorized as a form of intercourse. He told an untruth.
His lawyers who are masters of splitting hairs between a false statement and technically true one disagree with you Jaltus. If for arguments sake the word does technically refer only to the official sex act, would he have been morally wrong in making that statement??




As for Lev 19:11, it says do not deceive one another, and thus would be limited to the covenant community, as far as I can tell. I agree that you treat the covenant community different than the non-covenant community.

Oh no, someone will have to go and retrieve Hank from orbit. Are you saying Jaltus that the imperative not to deceive is relative to the people involved??? Are you then saying that believers cannot deceive each other with truth, but that we are allowed to deceive nonbelievers with truth?? Are you feeling okay?? Are you that desparate to win this argument?? That sounds like a great witness to an unbelieving world. What happened to abstaining from every appearance of evil?? What happened to letting your light so shine before men?? This cannot possibly seem like a good answer to you Jaltus.

But is that even what the verse says?? Nope. Let’s look at some different translations shall we??

Lev 19:11

(ASV) Ye shall not steal; neither shall ye deal falsely, nor lie one to another.

(CEV) Do not steal or tell lies or cheat others.

(GNB) "Do not steal or cheat or lie.

(GW) "Never steal, lie, or deceive your neighbor.

(ISV)

(KJV) Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

(KJV+) Ye shall not3808 steal,1589 neither3808 deal falsely,3584 neither3808 lie8266 one376 to another.5997

(LITV) You shall not steal nor lie, nor deceive to one another.

(MKJV) You shall not steal, nor lie, nor be deceitful to one another.

It is obvious that ALL three imperatives there (lying, deceiving, and stealing) are ALL modified by the phrase “one another.” So Jaltus, can we steal from unbelievers too??

This is all I have time for tonight.. more later.

Dee Dee Warren
November 23rd, 2002, 07:08 AM
Back for more….


Again, you have NEVER dealt with my argument from God's Own Character, something posted on the original thread that none of you advocates for lying have ever dealt with, and since reposted on this thread (I think).

Actually both Knight and I have. God own character is based upon justice and mercy and love. God own character would not have you tell the Nazis about the Jews in your basement.


Well, since I would only advocate going into business with a believer, I would not be able to deceive them. You, on the other hand, seem to think that lying can be righteous in the first place, leaving you no room to talk.

That has to be the most nonsensical thing you have recently said in this talk Jaltus. Are you then saying that my scenario would be peachily moral between two nonbelievers or a believer who decided, for whatever reason, to go into business with a nonbeliever. You have grabbed Plantiga’s tar baby.


you also never answered my argument from the meaning of the Greek, something you brought up.

I brought it up to show that deceit was an implicit concept in lying, whether truth was used to deceive or a falsehood was used to deceive. Additionally since our main texts are in the OT, it was a side point, and the NT certainly is not going to outright contradict the OT on this issue. Additionally within the meaning of that Greek word, just like the English word is “in a broad sense, whatever is not what it seems to be.” Additionally, in your eschatological paradigm your take on 2 Thess 2:9 would defeat your argument as well as the “man of sin” allegedly will perform “real” signs and wonders, but they are false in validating
him.. they will deceive the people.

And being consistent with your prior argument:


Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds…

Since this text also says “to one another,” it is okay to lie to unbelievers?


Anyone who thinks God endorses sin needs to read the Bible.

Oh, wow. I am sure glad you said that. Read the Bible. Hmm. Like where He rewards the midwives and praises Rahab. Thanks…. That clears things up a lot, unfortunately for your position.


As for Rahab, it says her FAITH saved her, not her lies.

Sorry, but I am on a low-straw diet. No one said any of her works saved her so of course her faith saved her, and she is specifically mentioned as being faithful in her actions with the spies which absolutely includes her lie. It is highly problematic for your that her lie is never condemned. Would you, in dealing with your children for an act that they did that contained a lot of good, but in the midst of which they immorally lied which was pivotal to achieving their goals, praise them in front of your other children without rebuking the immorality to give a balance??

James 2:25- Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

And how did she send them out another way??? By lying to save their hides.


Come on, people, get serious here and deal with some of my theological arguments. So far you are trying to get me to believe that God endorses evil. Why didn't Daniel and the 3 guys lie about praying or bowing down to the idol? Wouldn't that be a righteous lie to save themselves?

NO! It would show a LACK OF FAITH!

Wow, then why wasn’t Rahab’s lack of faith in lying WHICH IS CENTRAL TO HER ROLE WITH THE SPIES, ever condemned. Instead she is mentioned in the proverbial “Hall of Faith.”

Hank
November 23rd, 2002, 08:15 AM
Hi Dee Dee


My alleged limited definition is the philosophical definition in use today. I am using the generally accepted definition of relativism within the field of moral philosophy and the one used by its adherents. You made the claim that what I was saying was the very definition of relativism…. it turns out that you meant it was your very own definition of moral relativism which is illegitimate then to use polemically against me. It is telling to me that you cannot concede this point. There are many points of view that I disagree with, but I make sure when representing them, criticizing them, I define and represent them fairly. Your very wide tar brush of painting in with the moral relativists is unfair, and not accurate. You should retract that original comment. You may fairly try to argue and prove that the end result is the same, but my starting presuppositions are vastly different.

Dee I did a search for relativism and could not find your definition of the term. In fact I could not find any direct definition of the term. If you want me to concede that your definition is the correct definition of relativism then okay. I would like to move on to what I think you realize I am debating instead of arguing about the correct definition. That is that your definition that moral actions are relative to the situation, and that the end justifies the means destroys the concept of absolute morality. Is that fair enough?


You appear to have missed the point then if you don’t see how you have defeated your own argument. If you agree that we agree that there is one absolute standard for morality than you have conceded that I am not a moral relativists and that my view does not entail the lack of absolutes.

Dee just because you agree that there is one absolute standard for morality does not mean your are not a moral relativists. You and I disagree on what that absolute standard is even though we both believe there is one standard. One of us is wrong, maybe both.


Our argument, fairly defined, is whether all moral imperatives apply equally in all situations. I gave one such example of the command to submit to the government that is given by Paul and Solomon without qualification, but we learn in Acts, the force of that moral imperative varies depending upon the circumstances. I am saying the same thing with a different moral imperative… if you are not going to accuse the Bible of relativism or of having a lack of moral absolutes with regards to that issue, you cannot fairly do that to me.

I am not debating the Bible or what it says. I am debating absolute morality. If you want to believe that Jesus taught the same morality as the Old Testament then good luck. Personally I believe you are putting new wine into old wineskins.


You cannot justify that statement with the moral imperative to submit to the government. It is not always immoral to disobey the government.

I don’t understand what you are saying. The first sentence seems to say you believe it is immoral to disobey the government and the second seems to say it is okay sometimes.


Again, you have missed the point. The standard by which we discern better and worse is absolute and would apply equally to all persons in the same situation.

Why do you think I am missing your point? I know exactly what you are saying and I’m saying I believe it is wrong.


Well that is not exactly what I have been saying at all, and I gave the two Biblical examples of persons commended for their faith/fear who used deception in the very scenarios that they are praised for. You may not like that, but there it is.

It’s not that I don’t like it, I just don’t believe it.


Can you concoct a moral dilemna that I will struggle with?? I am sure you can but that does not disprove my points, only that I may have some moral maturing to do, and some more backbone to grow. But I doubt that you are comfortable with your position which would require you to tell the Nazi’s about the Jews in your basement, or the home invader where your wife is hiding so that he can rape and kill her.

I’m not at all uncomfortable with my position. I’m not saying I wouldn’t lie, I’m just saying I don’t believe it is moral when I lie regardless of the situation.

Dee this debate reminds me of the old joke I’m sure you’ve heard. The one about the man who offered a woman a million dollars to have sex with him. She said okay. Then he offered her 20 dollars and she was offended and said “what do you think I am?”. And he replied “We know what your are, we’re just debating the price”.

I believe there are absolute moral principles that apply in all cases. I don’t always react to situations as I believe I should because the price is too high. I admit I am a prostitute and ask for God’s forgiveness for being weak. I believe you are trying to argue that if the price is high enough, that it’s okay and you are not really a prostitute. I’m sure you know I’m using this as an example, not accusing you of being a prostitute.

The reason I believe this is because I have seen that every once in a while someone comes along that most people tend call a saint. People like Jesus, St. Frances, George Fox, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, etc. They take morality and say it is absolute. And not only do they say it is absolute, they live their life that way. In other words they never accept the money no matter how much is offered. I believe that the reason we see them as saints is because the holy sprit that lives inside us reveals it to us.

You keep bring up hiding Jews during WWII as proof that the end justifies the means. There was one European country, I think it was Holland but not sure, that said we will not hide Jews but we will stand side by side with them. By doing so they saved all the Jews instead of a few. Gandhi stated that God’s principles were stronger than that of the British might and stood by it. In the end the British saw that they could not defeat a moral law and walked away in humiliation at the power of God’s laws.

Dee how much could be accomplished is everyone stood up and said I will live morally no matter what the cost? Would Hitler have ever come to power? It has been shown one person standing up for moral principles without question can change the world. But we look at the immediate situation instead of the overall picture. Like looking at a beach under a microscope. It looks like a few grains of sand under the microscope, but when we back off and look at the larger plan, it’s a beautiful beach.

You think I don’t get the point. I get exactly the point you are making because I used to believe exactly as you do. I changed my beliefs because I believe the holy spirit has led me in that direction. I’m still learning and if I’m wrong I believe God will know that I was true to my beliefs and honestly sought, prayed and craved to understand his will. Jesus said to seek and you will find. I believe that is true.

Knight
November 23rd, 2002, 02:26 PM
Wow....

Every now and then you get into one of these debates and before you know it the opposition has tossed in so much obfuscation its tough to tell where you really are!

Prostitutes and Mother Theresa? Earth to Hank????

Let's review....
I want to summarize what my view point is in EXTREMELY simple, short and plain terms.

- Lying is not telling the truth (either by direct means, deception or omission)
- Lying is generally wrong. We should tell each other the truth. We SHOULD!
- Yet lying in and of itself is morally neutral.
- Sometimes lying is more appropriate than telling the truth. I.e., "no grandma I love your molasses cookies".
- Other times... lying is righteous! i.e., “But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive..... Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them..... Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.”

Hank says...
You keep bring up hiding Jews during WWII as proof that the end justifies the means. There was one European country, I think it was Holland but not sure, that said we will not hide Jews but we will stand side by side with them. By doing so they saved all the Jews instead of a few.That's a great anecdotal story but it doesn't do to much for all the examples that couldn't have been handled this way for a variety of reasons. You have to put yourself in the position of a single Christian German family trying to help and the Nazi's are banging on the door. The "Holland" story doesn't do much for them does it?

Hank continues...
Gandhi stated that God’s principles were stronger than that of the British might and stood by it. In the end the British saw that they could not defeat a moral law and walked away in humiliation at the power of God’s laws.Two Points:

1. Gandhi rejected Jesus Christ and makes for strange example since Gandhi is in Hell.

2. You are arguing a platitude! Sure it would be great if everyone stood together and were able to thwart evil without telling a falsehood! But the truth is... that isn't always possible i.e., the Hebrew Midwives would have been put to death had they stood against the Egyptian King and therefore both them and the Hebrew baby boys would have been lost. Which is why God blessed them for their righteous lie!

The bottom line is...
If one can tell the truth he should! But if wicked plans can ONLY be thwarted by lies and deception the Bible is clear! Thwart the wicked!!!

Compare lying to taking someone's life.

Taking a life can either be wrong or right! It all depends on the circumstances and motivation. If you take someone's life for unjust means then that is murder and absolutely wrong! Murder is absolutely wrong and therefore never right. Yet if you take someone's life for a just cause then that is NOT absolutely wrong! In fact righteous!

So it isn't the taking of life that is a moral absolute, its the motivation or circumstance. MURDER = Absolutely wrong by defintion. Because "murder" is defined by it's evil intention.

Likewise lying for an unjust cause is absolutely wrong (like bearing false witness) yet lying for a just cause is NOT absolutely wrong and can possibly be righteous!

bill betzler
November 23rd, 2002, 03:55 PM
Knight,

If you hadn't lied to your grandma the first time, you wouldn't have to lie to her every year as she brought you new boxes of your "favorite" molasses cookies.:)

Hank
November 23rd, 2002, 04:02 PM
Every now and then you get into one of these debates and before you know it the opposition has tossed in so much obfuscation its tough to tell where you really are!

Prostitutes and Mother Theresa? Earth to Hank????

Leave it to Knight to start with the insults when you’re trying to just have a discussion. Dee seems a pretty sharp lady so I believe she will understand where I am even if you can't.


a great anecdotal story but it doesn't do to much for all the examples that couldn't have been handled this way for a variety of reasons. You have to put yourself in the position of a single Christian German family trying to help and the Nazi's are banging on the door. The "Holland" story doesn't do much for them does it?

And just why couldn’t some of the German people have stood together and stopped this madness at the very beginning. God will do amazing things for those who believe.


1. Gandhi rejected Jesus Christ and makes for strange example since Gandhi is in Hell.

You have no idea where Gandhi is. It’s just your belief that that’s where he is.


2. You are arguing a platitude! Sure it would be great if everyone stood together and were able to thwart evil without telling a falsehood! But the truth is... that isn't always possible i.e., the Hebrew Midwives would have been put to death had they stood against the Egyptian King and therefore both them and the Hebrew baby boys would have been lost. Which is why God blessed them for their righteous lie!

You limit the power of God by saying the only possible result is bad when someone stands on moral principles.


The bottom line is...
If one can tell the truth he should! But if wicked plans can ONLY be thwarted by lies and deception the Bible is clear! Thwart the wicked!!!

Compare lying to taking someone's life.

Taking a life can either be wrong or right! It all depends on the circumstances and motivation. If you take someone's life for unjust means then that is murder and absolutely wrong! Murder is absolutely wrong and therefore never right. Yet if you take someone's life for a just cause then that is NOT absolutely wrong! In fact righteous!

So it isn't the taking of life that is a moral absolute, its the motivation or circumstance. MURDER = Absolutely wrong by defintion. Because "murder" is defined by it's evil intention.

And just who decides when the cause is just enough to take someone’s life? Why the person taking the life of course. With that philosophy I can justify almost any killing.


Likewise lying for an unjust cause is absolutely wrong (like bearing false witness) yet lying for a just cause is NOT absolutely wrong and can possibly be righteous!

We have had a debate about the end justifying the means and you stated that you did not believe that and that the Bible did not teach that. Are you changing that statement or just saying these are not examples of the ends justifying the means.

Amadis
November 23rd, 2002, 04:11 PM
'Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay.' Mean what you say.

That does not mean that I should have to say something in every situation. Sometimes, in order to avoid telling a truth that may harm someone, I need to be silent, and -- if necessary -- take the consequences of that silence (just as I take the consequences of doing the right thing in other situations).

If the Nazis ask me if Anne Frank is hiding in the attic, I say nothing, regardless of the consequences.

Play-acting is different: when I pretend to be someone else on stage, and say things I may not believe, everyone in the audience is in on the 'deception', and no one is deceived.

bill betzler
November 23rd, 2002, 04:17 PM
I will wager that those who lie, any lie, are just not willing to pay the price for the truth.

E.g., the Nazis knock on your door and want you to give up the Jews. You could take another path that does not require lying.

It falls under this law:

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Knight
November 23rd, 2002, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Amadis
If the Nazis ask me if Anne Frank is hiding in the attic, I say nothing, regardless of the consequences. Thank God you were not in that situation because you would have been the cause of both yours AND Anne Franks death.

What a tragedy that modern day Christians have lost the ability to think.

Dee Dee Warren
November 23rd, 2002, 04:19 PM
Dear Knight:

Thank you so much for you input there. I think Hank and I were chasing our own tails a bit, and you put the points in sharper focus in many less words than I do.

Hank.... I will adding my own thoughts soon.... I have some wheat and tares issues asked of me in the eschatology forum that requires my attention.

Knight
November 23rd, 2002, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by bill betzler
I will wager that those who lie, any lie, are just not willing to pay the price for the truth.

E.g., the Nazis knock on your door and want you to give up the Jews. You could take another path that does not require lying.

It falls under this law:

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. What has gotten into you people?

Have you all thrown out your brains?

If the Nazi's are at your door and they are suspicious that you have a family of Jews in your attic and you say... "No sir, I there is no body in the house but me and my wife." you think that is wrong???????

Is it any wonder that many non-believers reject Christianity based on what they hear Christians saying?

Jaltus
November 23rd, 2002, 04:27 PM
Here we go again, do you guys actually read my posts or not?

Knight and Dee Dee,

GOD DOES NOT ENDORSE UNTRUTH AT ALL! The Bible explicitly says that God does not lie (tell falsehoods, literally) in Titus 1:2. We are to do what God does I John 2:6. Jesus is the embodyment of truth. THEREFORE we are to tell the TRUTH.

Deception is not necessarily telling an untruth. Deception means trying to fool someone. You can fool people by telling them the truth. Therefore, deception can be ok, but lying (meaning telling untruths in order to deceive) is never right and is expressly forbidden, hence FALSE TESTIMONY.

Knight is not and never has dealt with my position. He makes up what he thinks I am saying and then attacks that, which is ludicrous.

I have clearly defined what I am taking lying to be and I have clearly defined deception, something Knight has not done. I am making a disticntion between them based on biblical distinctions (well, Greek ones anyway, my Hebrew is not solid enough to say there is a huge semantic distinction).

All you are arguing is that there is one place in the Bible where people deceive and God praises them for their faith. Lying is not explicit in the passage, it is an assumption you are making. The Rahab passage has been thoroughly disproven (just look at the chapter as a whole and tell me all those people are praised for lying instead of for faith, and you quickly see how vacuous an argument it is).

Dee Dee,

I'll reply to you later tonight, I have to go make dinner.

bill betzler
November 23rd, 2002, 04:33 PM
Looks like Amadis and I were on the same wave length. I was in post reply when he was posting.

I'm sure Hank didn't mean to insinuate anything immoral in his analogy toward Dee Dee. Obviously a poor choice of a mental picture though.

bill betzler
November 23rd, 2002, 04:43 PM
Knight,


If the Nazi's are at your door and they are suspicious that you have a family of Jews in your attic and you say... "No sir, I there is no body in the house but me and my wife." you think that is wrong???????

Yeeeessss. Knight , it isn't easy telling the truth, it is very difficult. The costs are enormous to the individual in every situation of ones life. But the rewards are also great.



Is it any wonder that many non-believers reject Christianity based on what they hear Christians saying?

I surmise that the opposite is true. We are filling up the churches because they are told that their christianity can be bought with a few cheap words of confession.

Amadis
November 23rd, 2002, 04:46 PM
Shall we then sin so that grace may abound? God forbid.

Shall we then return evil for evil? So, according to some people here, we SHOULD slap the one who slaps us, because it serves some "good" or higher purpose (the proud and the arrogant used that argument for centuries, in direct contradiction of Christ -- because they thought maintaining their 'honor' was the higher good).

Do we do wrong because we think it's less wrong than something else? Lying to avoid some other wrong is like stealing less than someone else does, and then justifying it because it's less than what someone else stole.

Some here think God will smile on them lying (and what else -- stealing, beating, raping?) because they "meant well". OK, where do we draw the line? At fighting? At fornication? At gossiping? Christ is wiser: He says, "Say what you mean; leave it at that; take the consequences; do not add by one iota to the amount of wrong in the world."

And by the way, if the Nazis suspect Jews in my house, they are not going to be stopped by either my silence or my lying. The Lord expects evil to happen in the world; He doesn't expect us to add to it.

Jaltus
November 23rd, 2002, 05:05 PM
Dee Dee,

Agreed so why did you do exactly that?? My original post contained both definitions (i.e. the word means either just as legitimately) and you culled it down to the one that suited you. I merely brought up the part you skipped.Again, not true. I was pointing out that in order for it to be a lie, untruth must be involved. The same is not true for deception. This is an important point you keep neglecting. Lying and deception overlap only when untruth is used in order to deceive.

Here is the dictionary definition of “lie”:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)Ok, no problem.


And again, here is one which is exactly what I have been saying all along:

To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; to say or do that which is intended to deceive another, when he a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation. (Webster's Revised

Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)This is exactly the definition I have argued for all along, though I think there is an error or two in your transcription (there is a spot of bad grammar).


Thus to lie encompases both deception by falsehood and deception by truth. It is the intention to deceive that makes it a lie. Can you really say with a straight face that it is always morally permissible to deceive someone as long as you manipulate a true statement to do so?? Come on now!!!That is not what the above definition says, it says only uttering falsehoods. Note that it does not start a new definition, it only elaborates.

However, now we are digressing into English semantics instead of biblical ones. I made my case from the Greek text, something you have been unable to refute. The Greek clearly indicates that lying is telling a nontruth.

Again, this does not matter as what my argument is and always has been is that telling an untruth is always wrong.

On what planet?? You cannot take the second one of either selection for they define using a truth to deceive as lying.See above discussion.


First your claim that the midwives did not lie…..

Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?” And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.” Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.

First taking your erroneous limitation on the definition of lying (which I have already disproven above), they are still lying. The text tells us WHY the midwives did not follow the orders…. Because they feared God. Yet when the king asked them WHY they did not kill the babies, they said because the Hebrew woman were fast droppers. That is not why they did not do it, the text says that. So they told a FALSEHOOD.Again, English definitions are irrelevant and you know it. Are you arguing from the Bible or your own rhetoric? My point is still that THEY SAID NOTHING FALSE. The scripture does not say that they did. Oh, and before Knight comments, the Hebrew says "and" in verse 20, not therefore. That is an erronious translation. Verse 21 does say explicitly it was the fear of the Lord which caused their blessing, not the "lying," which very much does disprove Knight's point.


Man, Slick Willie would be so proud. The king commanded ALL the Hebrew male babies to be killed and wanted to know why this was not done. The context is ALL, not some, not sometimes, not could be. The midwives answered that they could not do it because the woman delivered early…. Not some of the woman, but in context ALL the women. He is asking why ALL of the male children were spared alive, and their answer is simply not true.No wonder you are a mod, you sling mud with the best of them. I guess it takes outrageous statements and invective language to argue, or at least be a mod. First off, the link to Clinton is uncalled for and stupid. If you cannot argue your point, use highly inflammatory language praying on emotion instead of intellect. Well done. :rolleyes: Secondly, I have already clearly noted and defeated your objection in a previous post. My point was that they did not in fact say all, they said what they did as a generalization and Pharoah took it to mean all. That is the line between deception and telling an untruth (as I have detailed in my posts).

As for your argument about Clinton again, get real. Trying dealing with the issue at hand instead of trying to alienate people from my view. Really, Dee Dee, I expect better from you.


Oh no, someone will have to go and retrieve Hank from orbit. Are you saying Jaltus that the imperative not to deceive is relative to the people involved??? Are you then saying that believers cannot deceive each other with truth, but that we are allowed to deceive nonbelievers with truth?? Are you feeling okay?? Are you that desparate to win this argument?? That sounds like a great witness to an unbelieving world. What happened to abstaining from every appearance of evil?? What happened to letting your light so shine before men?? This cannot possibly seem like a good answer to you Jaltus.No, I am responding to WHAT THE TEXT SAYS, maybe you should try it instead of importing your own beliefs. It would be refreshing.


But is that even what the verse says?? Nope. Let’s look at some different translations shall we??

Lev 19:11

(ASV) Ye shall not steal; neither shall ye deal falsely, nor lie one to another.

(GW) "Never steal, lie, or deceive your neighbor.

(NIV) 11 "'Do not steal. "'Do not lie. "'Do not deceive one another.

(KJV) Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

(LITV) You shall not steal nor lie, nor deceive to one another.

(MKJV) You shall not steal, nor lie, nor be deceitful to one another.


It is obvious that ALL three imperatives there (lying, deceiving, and stealing) are ALL modified by the phrase “one another.” So Jaltus, can we steal from unbelievers too??Interesting but wrong interpretation. The Hebrew makes it clear that each is in fact seperate. How? Disjunctive markings in the text. Sorry, you lose, go home. Not that I changed the list, showing that all of the above actually AGREE with me on this one.

I'll get to your other post later.

Dee Dee Warren
November 23rd, 2002, 05:15 PM
No wonder you are a mod, you sling mud with the best of them. I guess it takes outrageous statements and invective language to argue, or at least be a mod.]

Thanks!! Did you hear that Knight?? I am one of the boys.

Seriously Jaltus... being a tad bit melodramatic again are we?? I have already had to call you out on that before.

On one quick note you said


Disjunctive markings in the text.

First of all, as the comparitive translations I posted show, most translators don't agree with you as they have made it clear in their translations that all three terms are modified by the phrase "one another." Second, you are aware that all disjunctive markers were added to the text around the time of the MT?? You cannot argue that a textual addition proves your point, if it is in fact as you say (which I dispute as does the translators of the posted editions who I daresay are more qualified than you are in Hebrew), all you have proven is that a certain group of Jews who added the markers saw it your way. You did not deal with the moral absurdity you created that would make it okay to deceive unbelievers but not believers. [invective statement that qualifies me to be a mod]Have you been smoking banana peels again??[/end of invective statement that qualifies me to be a mod]

I like it when you get spunky. Grrrrrrr......

Jaltus
November 23rd, 2002, 06:13 PM
Um, and I pointed out that you were WRONG about the translations backing you.

Sorry.

As for the MT, that is what translators base their decisions on. The Masoretes know a whole lot more than modern scholars do because they SPOKE Hebrew. Sorry, but that was a bad argument from you, just all around a bad argument.

Jaltus
November 23rd, 2002, 06:14 PM
Oh, and the comment about the invective language was a barb aimed more at Knight than you. Though you are doing it much more than normal.

Dee Dee Warren
November 23rd, 2002, 06:16 PM
No Jaltus, the translations back me, but I see I will have to spoon feed it to you (smile) - Open wide here comes Mr. Airplane.....

Talk to ya soon.

Dee Dee Warren
November 23rd, 2002, 06:17 PM
Oh, and the comment about the invective language was a barb aimed more at Knight than you. Though you are doing it much more than normal.



Knight inspires me. I think we make a good tag team.

Hank
November 23rd, 2002, 06:34 PM
What a tragedy that modern day Christians have lost the ability to think.

Knight the tragedy is that Christians now only think like everyone else does. In the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus was talking about turning the other cheek and other difficult things that did not make sense he summed up by saying

“For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?”

You think like the publicans of today do and call it common sense because it’s too much of a sacrifice to follow the teachings of Jesus. What is the difference between what you are saying do and what any atheist that post here would recommend doing? I understand their position since they don’t believe in any heavenly reward. But you supposedly believe that God will reward adherence to his truths even though they require sacrifice, sometimes tremendous sacrifice. The early church practiced the teachings of Jesus and paid a high price. But they gained a lot because people saw the truth in those teachings and multiplied. Today the church is just a shadow of that truly remarkable beginning.

Freak
November 23rd, 2002, 06:38 PM
DD, I think Jaltus has brought up some good points you have failed to deal with.

Jaltus
November 23rd, 2002, 08:44 PM
Dee Dee,

Onto your second post (smart of you to split it up, not so smart to try to take me on).

Actually both Knight and I have. God own character is based upon justice and mercy and love. God own character would not have you tell the Nazis about the Jews in your basement. That is in fact false. God's character is not more love than truth. Jesus (and hence God) IS truth, just as God IS love. He is not one more than the other. You are promoting a nonbiblical view of God.


That has to be the most nonsensical thing you have recently said in this talk Jaltus. Are you then saying that my scenario would be peachily moral between two nonbelievers or a believer who decided, for whatever reason, to go into business with a nonbeliever. You have grabbed Plantiga’s tar baby.Well, if you are going to make stupid scenarios, expect stupid answers. I can only rise so far above the morass you try to put me in. (I thought you would get a kick out of that little speel there). Seriously, if you do not want an answer like that, stick to the issue at hand instead of making up hypothetical situations. I would not go into business in the first place, I am an academician. Your response is also less than helpful.


I brought it up to show that deceit was an implicit concept in lying, whether truth was used to deceive or a falsehood was used to deceive. Additionally since our main texts are in the OT, it was a side point, and the NT certainly is not going to outright contradict the OT on this issue. Additionally within the meaning of that Greek word, just like the English word is “in a broad sense, whatever is not what it seems to be.” Additionally, in your eschatological paradigm your take on 2 Thess 2:9 would defeat your argument as well as the “man of sin” allegedly will perform “real” signs and wonders, but they are false in validating
him.. they will deceive the people. The II Thess passage is irrelevent. In fact, the entire above paragraph is irrelevent. You still did not deal with what the Greek word means, and it is very important for my theological argument from God's character hinges on it. The word for lying in Greek means SAYING SOMETHING FALSE. It does not mean or imply or include truth for deceptive reasons.


Since this text also says “to one another,” it is okay to lie to unbelievers?Taken by itself it would, taken canonically it cannot.


Oh, wow. I am sure glad you said that. Read the Bible. Hmm. Like where He rewards the midwives and praises Rahab. Thanks…. That clears things up a lot, unfortunately for your position.Of course He praises them for their FAITH, not their (alleged) lies, which invalidates your position.


Sorry, but I am on a low-straw diet. No one said any of her works saved her so of course her faith saved her, and she is specifically mentioned as being faithful in her actions with the spies which absolutely includes her lie. It is highly problematic for your that her lie is never condemned. Would you, in dealing with your children for an act that they did that contained a lot of good, but in the midst of which they immorally lied which was pivotal to achieving their goals, praise them in front of your other children without rebuking the immorality to give a balance?? One can have faith and still sin. She was commended for her faith, not for her sin. She was commended for fearing God, not for lying. Your case is that she was commended for lying, but that is in fact an argument from silence since her lying IS NEVER COMMENTED UPON, either good or bad. Using your insane way of reading the Bible I guess it is okay to be a prostitute since she is not condemned for that either.

Honestly, do you have a hermeneutic at all? Don't you see how absurd this makes your belief structure have to be in order to remain consistent?

James 2:25- Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

And how did she send them out another way??? By lying to save their hides.Yup, and being a harlot is a good thing. Her faith was in saving them, notice the lying is not mentioned by her harlotry is. Must be a good thing to be a harlot then since it is not explicitly condemned and is in fact mentioned where she is praised.


Wow, then why wasn’t Rahab’s lack of faith in lying WHICH IS CENTRAL TO HER ROLE WITH THE SPIES, ever condemned. Instead she is mentioned in the proverbial “Hall of Faith.”Really? If it is so central, why is it only mentioned in the narrative AND NOT ANY OTHER TIME SHE IS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE? Looks like it is only central to you. Again, her being a harlot was not condemned either, but I do not see you looking at that as an exciting new profession not explicitly condemned by the Bible in one passage.

Dee Dee Warren
November 23rd, 2002, 08:49 PM
Jaltus, didn't I tell you I was limiting my straw intake?? Are you that disrespectful of my diet that you give me two large servings in one day?? You have enough straw now to build a whole family including their dog Spot.

Jaltus
November 23rd, 2002, 09:11 PM
Just trying to be like you, my dear scarecrow.

Hank
November 24th, 2002, 06:43 AM
DD I just saw your pump me up picture. WOW! Would you beat me up sometimes? LOL

Dee Dee Warren
November 24th, 2002, 08:01 AM
Dear Hank:


DD I just saw your pump me up picture. WOW! Would you beat me up sometimes? LOL

Thanx!!! What? The spanking I am giving you here isn't enough?? LOLOLOL.... if you really want a good beating (and if you are a futurist) debate me on eschatology next time. I guarantee you won't be able to sit for a week. Ask Jaltus, he once got the very special Dee Dee Eschatology treatment. LOLOLOLOL

And Hank thanks for breaking in with the small talk... it helps to diffuse the insensity between believers that can sometimes happen in a debate.

Hank
November 24th, 2002, 09:12 AM
Thanx!!! What? The spanking I am giving you here isn't enough?? LOLOLOL.... if you really want a good beating (and if you are a futurist) debate me on eschatology next time. I guarantee you won't be able to sit for a week. Ask Jaltus, he once got the very special Dee Dee Eschatology treatment. LOLOLOLOL

Bring it on DD. I like the rough stuff.:)

DD I don’t know what a futurist is or what eschatology is so I’ll have to do some checking. However I don’t think I’m a very good debater as I don’t have any training in that field. I just put my two cents worth in sometimes.

Dee Dee Warren
November 24th, 2002, 10:36 AM
Oh, and Hank, did you like the part where I brought up how Jaltus totally undermined everything you were arguing for?? Not that I am telling you what to post, but it would be interesting to see you take him on in that one point.

And I forewarned Jaltus that he fell on his own sword in his last post to me [upon further reflection it was over several posts] so I am giving him warning to retract his comments to save him further public humiliation at my hands. See how nice I am??

Hank
November 24th, 2002, 06:02 PM
Oh, and Hank, did you like the part where I brought up how Jaltus totally undermined everything you were arguing for?? Not that I am telling you what to post, but it would be interesting to see you take him on in that one point.

I agree with Jaltus as I often do on his viewpoint. I do not agree on his means of getting there. If I did I would be arguing that the end justifies the means. However I am limited on the amount of time I can spend here and also you and Jaltus were having a discussion while you and I were also so I was just staying with ours and skimming over what the two of you were talking about. So I’ll just let Jaltus defend his argument and wait for you to reply to mine.


And I forewarned Jaltus that he fell on his own sword in his last post to me so I am giving him warning to retract his comments to save him further public humiliation at my hands. See how nice I am??

You are both nice and attractive DD but it doesn’t make you right. :)

Dee Dee Warren
November 24th, 2002, 06:40 PM
You are both nice and attractive DD

Flattery will get you everywhere :o


it doesn’t make you right

No, my arguments make me right :up: You might want to read what I get to post next though for it will be a painful illustration of Jaltus' falling on his own sword.

Hank
November 24th, 2002, 08:05 PM
Ouch, well you are self-confident.

billwald
November 24th, 2002, 11:29 PM
Acts 24:18-20
18 Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult.
19 Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me.
20 Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council,
(KJV)

Paul lied by inference. He wanted Felix to infer that he had been found innocent by the Council when in fact the trial was interrupted, not concluded.

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 03:31 AM
Ouch, well you are self-confident.


That's one way to put it :D

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 04:49 AM
Dear Jaltus:

Well I warned you that you just imploded, but I guess now I will have to make it a painful public demonstration :D Would you expect any less??

The following has been your assertion for the majority of this thread:


Telling truth in order to deceive is nowhere condemned.

To which I responded (in part):


And you are wrong that telling truth in order to deceive is nowhere condemned because I cited:

Leviticus 19:11, “Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another.”


To which you obfuscated:


As for Lev 19:11, it says do not deceive one another, and thus would be limited to the covenant community, as far as I can tell. I agree that you treat the covenant community different than the non-covenant community.

To which I brilliantly responded:


Oh no, someone will have to go and retrieve Hank from orbit. Are you saying Jaltus that the imperative not to deceive is relative to the people involved??? Are you then saying that believers cannot deceive each other with truth, but that we are allowed to deceive nonbelievers with truth?? Are you feeling okay?? Are you that desparate to win this argument?? That sounds like a great witness to an unbelieving world. What happened to abstaining from every appearance of evil?? What happened to letting your light so shine before men?? This cannot possibly seem like a good answer to you Jaltus.

So, Jaltus is taking the position that it is okay to deceive unbelievers which of course refutes his earlier dogmatic statement that telling truth in order to deceive is NOWHERE condemned, and he has basically advocating the same position as I am, just with a different moral imperative. I have said that it is not immoral, and in fact righteous, in certain situation to lie. Jaltus is saying that it is not immoral in certain situations to deceive someone. He thinks it makes a whole honking world of difference that the vehicle for the deception is a truth rather than a falsehood… a reversal of Hank’s objection…. Jaltus has the means justifying the end, a logical absurdity.

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 12:50 PM
You people are all insane.

But so am I, so I love you all. ;)

Let me start out by asking this, if you were in a situation where you had to choose between denying Jesus and living, or not denying Jesus and dying(sp?), which would you choose?

But, before you answer, read this:

But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. -Matthew 10:33

So we may boldly say: "The LORD is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?" -Hebrews 13:6

Answer this, and I'll establish relevance.

;)

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by cirisme
You people are all insane.

But so am I, so I love you all. ;)

Let me start out by asking this, if you were in a situation where you had to choose between denying Jesus and living, or not denying Jesus and dying(sp?), which would you choose?

But, before you answer, read this:

But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. -Matthew 10:33

So we may boldly say: "The LORD is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?" -Hebrews 13:6

Answer this, and I'll establish relevance.

;) Are you asking if lies of omissions are a sin?

But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. -Matthew 10:33

The above verse has nothing to do with lying and saying your not a Christian when you really are (I.e., like Peter) yet has everything to do with accepting Jesus in the first place. Therefore if one rejects Jesus as his Saviour then he will not be saved - plain and simple.
Matthew 10:32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 “But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. So, I ask all of you.... are lies of omission always sinful? Or are there times when lies of omission are NOT sinful?

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 01:06 PM
Are you asking if lies of omissions are a sin?

No.


The above verse has nothing to do with lying and saying your not a Christian when you really are (I.e., like Peter) yet has everything to do with accepting Jesus in the first place. Therefore if one rejects Jesus as his Saviour then he will not be saved - plain and simple.

It has everything to do with it. I told you I would establish relevance once the question was answered. ;)

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by cirisme
It has everything to do with it. I told you I would establish relevance once the question was answered. ;) You better read the chapter again.

Jesus is instructing the apostles to...

Matthew 10:1 And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him

Matthew 10:7 “And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

Matthew 10:13 “If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.

Matthew 10:32 “ Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 “But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 10:40 “ He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.

The chapter has everything to do with converting unbelievers, NOT testing people who are already believers.

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 02:00 PM
Hey Knight...

I could be wrong (or gasp) I could actually be understanding what Ciris is trying to do.. but this is what I think. He has misunderstood our position as saying that the need to preserve life trumps every other moral imperative given. Thus, he is trying to box us into a corner thinking that consistency would demand that our position would say that we would deny Christ to save our own hides. Of course all of that is based upon a gross misunderstanding of the whole point in the first place.

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Amadis
Shall we then sin so that grace may abound? God forbid.Amadis please do not tear scripture from its context in attempt to make a point. In the verse you reference (Romans 6:1) Paul is making the case that since those in the Body are "dead to sin" it doesn't make it right or good to sin as he re-states just a couple verses later....(Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!). Secondly in an attempt to make this verse relevant to our discussion you have assumed that lying is "sinful" which of course is the basis of the discussion in the first place.

You continue...
Shall we then return evil for evil?You are assuming that all lies are "evil" and they are not. It was not "evil" for the Hebrew midwives to lie to the Egyptian King was it?

You continue...
Do we do wrong because we think it's less wrong than something else? Lying to avoid some other wrong is like stealing less than someone else does, and then justifying it because it's less than what someone else stole.Lying is NOT like stealing in any way! When someone steals they are taking property away from its rightful owner. Lying is simply the act of not telling the truth which in and of itself is morally neutral.

You continue...
Some here think God will smile on them lyingOn occasion... if the right circumstances exist... GOD DOES SMILE on people for lying! And Gods word in the Bible is proof positive of it!

You continue...
(and what else -- stealing, beating, raping?) because they "meant well". OK, where do we draw the line? At fighting? At fornication? At gossiping? Christ is wiser: He says, "Say what you mean; leave it at that; take the consequences; do not add by one iota to the amount of wrong in the world." If you have to build a strawman to make your point you don't have a point.

You continue...
And by the way, if the Nazis suspect Jews in my house, they are not going to be stopped by either my silence or my lying. The Lord expects evil to happen in the world; He doesn't expect us to add to it. So... your saying you have told the truth and lead the Nazi's to the Jewish family hiding in your basement because God's expects evil to happen?

You are a sick person and I am thankful that REAL hero's have existed in history that weren't so brainless.

The true evil is the Nazi's slaughtering the Jews. If you lead the Nazi's to the hiding Jewish family it is YOU who are adding to the evil act! You have become a willing accomplice to the slaughter of the Jewish family! Their blood is directly on your hands!

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Hey Knight...

I could be wrong (or gasp) I could actually be understanding what Ciris is trying to do.. but this is what I think. He has misunderstood our position as saying that the need to preserve life trumps every other moral imperative given. Thus, he is trying to box us into a corner thinking that consistency would demand that our position would say that we would deny Christ to save our own hides. Of course all of that is based upon a gross misunderstanding of the whole point in the first place. I am not sure what cirisme is getting at but Matthew 10:33 has nothing to do with believers denying Christ. That is all I am saying.

But I am curious...
Is the act of denying who Christ is either directly or through omission ALWAYS sinful?

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Sheepdog
By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king's edict.

Direct deception, and disobedience to the governing authorities! Sheepdog, what a great point!

Think about this....

On this thread we all these people claiming they would be brave and NOT lie to the Nazi's and turn over the hiding Jewish family. They think that telling the truth is brave in those circumstances! That is ridiculous!

Being brave would be... deceiving the wicked Nazi's!

Telling the truth to the Nazi's would only guarantee the safety of yourself! Deceiving the Nazi's would be risking your own life to save the life of others, similar to your Moses reference.

Notice....
and they were not afraid of the king's edict. They were not afraid to die! They would put their life on the line to save the child (as did the hebrew midwives). Now THAT is bravery!!!

The opposite of bravery would be leading the authorities to the hiding family (or child) whatever the case may be and making yourself an accomplice to the murder! That's not bravery.... its cowardliness!

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 03:23 PM
I could be wrong (or gasp) I could actually be understanding what Ciris is trying to do.. but this is what I think. He has misunderstood our position as saying that the need to preserve life trumps every other moral imperative given. Thus, he is trying to box us into a corner thinking that consistency would demand that our position would say that we would deny Christ to save our own hides. Of course all of that is based upon a gross misunderstanding of the whole point in the first place.

You guys have no clue what I am trying to establish, do you? :D

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 03:23 PM
Any of you want to answer my question?

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 03:26 PM
You guys have no clue what I am trying to establish, do you?

For once I am relieved to be wrong, for to be right would mean that I am starting to understand your thought process :eek: LOLOLOLOL

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by cirisme


You guys have no clue what I am trying to establish, do you? :D No, but I am sure not gonna let you estabish anything on a faulty premise.

So there is no reason to answer your question (at least not at this point).

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 03:49 PM
You don't even know what premise I'm going on.

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 03:59 PM
You don't even know what premise I'm going on.



Errr.... [smart aleck comment deleted in an exercise of unusual self-control, or possibly due to uncontrolable laughter after see the Dee Dee Bobble Head doll which is undeniably more fit than the Freak Bobble Head doll, though a tad bit too provocative]

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 04:09 PM
cirisme, OK I will ignore your faulty premise and answer.....

Your question was...
Let me start out by asking this, if you were in a situation where you had to choose between denying Jesus and living, or not denying Jesus and dying(sp?), which would you choose?Your question relies on the fact that an EVIL force is threatening my life.

I have NO obligation to tell an evil force the truth!

Especially if my living could help my family or others to survive at a later date.
Mark 15:2 Then Pilate asked Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” He answered and said to him, “It is as you say.” 3 And the chief priests accused Him of many things, but He answered nothing. 4 Then Pilate asked Him again, saying, “Do You answer nothing? See how many things they testify against You!” 5 But Jesus still answered nothing, so that Pilate marveled. Jesus was directly asked to identify Himself yet He answered nothing. The truth is that Jesus was the Son of God! One with the Father (John 10:30). Yet He did not tell answer Pilate with the truth! A truthful answer to Pilate held the keys to ETERNAL life! Yet Jesus answered not!

Jesus is the truth, but He is not held hostage by the truth or by being "truthful" as in the above case. Jesus demonstrates that truth has no obligation to wickedness. Obliging wickedness.... is in essence complying with wickedness which of course is evil.

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 04:11 PM
Your question relies on the fact that an EVIL force is threatening my life.

I have NO obligation to tell an evil force the truth!

Especially if my living could help my family or others to survive at a later date.

So, you would deny Jesus to save your life?

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 04:12 PM
Dee Dee,

Well, it is obvious to me that you have not read any of my posts. I have stated time and again and again and again that when I said lying, I was specifically referring to telling untruth in order to deceive. Claim all you wish that I am "falling on my sword," all it shows is how grossly inattnetive you have been to my postings.


So, Jaltus is taking the position that it is okay to deceive unbelievers which of course refutes his earlier dogmatic statement that telling truth in order to deceive is NOWHERE condemned, and he has basically advocating the same position as I am, just with a different moral imperative. I have said that it is not immoral, and in fact righteous, in certain situation to lie. Jaltus is saying that it is not immoral in certain situations to deceive someone. He thinks it makes a whole honking world of difference that the vehicle for the deception is a truth rather than a falsehood… a reversal of Hank’s objection…. Jaltus has the means justifying the end, a logical absurdity. I stand by my position that it is okay to deceive with the truth.

Leviticus 19:11 does say in fact "do not use untruth to mislead one another." The word in Hebrew in fact means to speak untruth in order to decieve, that which I have preached against since the beginning. The problem with Dee Dee's argument is that she imports her own definitions into the text.

You see, Dee Dee, there is nowhere in the Bible that teaches against using truth to deceive. Your own argument shows your lack of study, as you have completely mishandled the biblical text arguing your own definitions instead of arguing scripture.

Once again, your inflated self-worth is shown to be just that, inflated.

I am glad that I get to be a pin for you.

Again, do you ever plan on dealing with my argument from God's character that none of you have dealt with yet? Oh, I admit that Knight tried, but his attempt was found lacking, and not just by me but by other readers as well.

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 04:14 PM
Oh, the Hebrew word is shaqar, meaning "to deal falsely" or "be false."

The noun form is sheqer, which means "a lie."

Isn't it interesting that the very words of scripture have the exact definition that I have been using all along?

*hands Dee Dee the sword*

I think someone was going to fall on something?

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 04:15 PM
Jaltus, Jaltus, Jaltus.. this is going to be fun. I will keep you in suspense for a few.....


*hands Dee Dee the sword*



Not content to be eviscerated eh?? Now you want to have your head lobbed off as well?? Well first let me wipe off the blood and guts and get out my sharpening stone....

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 04:18 PM
And I haven't forgotten about you Hank, it is just that Jaltus is feeling his oats more than usual, and this is a rare opportunity.

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 04:20 PM
Yeah, Hank, she is too busy not dealing with my arguments to not deal with yours right now.

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 04:21 PM
Jaltus, you're delusional. What was in those oats???

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 04:21 PM
All the arrogance. :noid:

I just realized why I stopped posting here. :doh:

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 04:23 PM
I just realized why I stopped posting here.

Sure.

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 04:25 PM
Ciris,

You missed an e-mail exchange where we (Dee Dee and myself) decided to be intentionally insulting just for fun. It actually is keeping the mood light. Hank just joined in naturally.

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by cirisme


So, you would deny Jesus to save your life? Depending on the circumstances YES! Of course wouldn't you? Or are you held hostage by truth so that you are obligated to help wickedness?

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 04:41 PM
Knight and SD,

You make a mockery out of 2000 years of Christendom.

Luke 12:8-9
8 "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God.
9 But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God."

Looks like you guys need to read some more scripture.

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 04:59 PM
So if someone approaches you in a drunken stupor, and threatens to shoot you if you claim to be a Christian, you would oblige him?

Because God knows it's more important that a drunk man gets to kill a believer than for your children to have their father.

Now that is good.

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 05:01 PM
Depending on the circumstances YES! Of course wouldn't you? Or are you held hostage by truth so that you are obligated to help wickedness?

You've got to be kidding me! Thank goodness an untold number of Christian heroes were willing enough to be martyred for their Lord.

For me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

And yes, I am so obligated to my Lord, that I would be willing to die for Him.

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 05:03 PM
Oh, silence != lying. :nono:

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 05:05 PM
Warning: Shallow Waters, No Diving Allowed

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 05:08 PM
And that in your opinion is under every situation, it is not just simply sharing the hope within you?

So if someone approaches you in a drunken stupor, and threatens to shoot you if you claim to be a Christian, you would oblige him?

Because God knows it's more important that a drunk man gets to kill a believer than for your children to have their father. It is good to know you put your kids above your God.

Maybe I just find that to be TOTALLY ANTIBIBLICAL.

It is Christ who saves me, not I save me through my lies.

If you claim Jesus is not your own, then He probably isn't.

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 05:08 PM
Warning: Shallow Waters, No Diving Allowed

That sums up your position nicely. :thumb:

;)

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 05:09 PM
What a shame that you guys put your temporal lives above your eternal ones. No wonder you believe in lying, you believe in saving yourself above saving your savior's Name.

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 05:10 PM
Jaltus,


What a shame that you guys put your temporal lives above your eternal ones. No wonder you believe in lying, you believe in saving yourself above saving your savior's Name.

Right on, bro. :thumb:

The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. -John 12:25

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 05:10 PM
See Ciris... you are fitting right in too, even without being a part of Jaltus' and I email conversation (which was very fun and pleasant - thanx Jaltus - I am sending you that link so you can help tan some atheist hide)

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 05:12 PM
Do you ever address any arguments in here?

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Jaltus
Knight and SD,

You make a mockery out of 2000 years of Christendom.

Luke 12:8-9
8 "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God.
9 But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God."

Looks like you guys need to read some more scripture. Ha! Jaltus are you kidding me!!!!!!!

Are you really gonna use the above verse to help your point???

You should be ashamed!

The above verse is in reference to Jesus sending out the apostles (not evil forces) to convert unbelievers! Is has NOTHING (and I repeat) NOTHING to do with believers denying Christ before evil forces to avoid sudden death!!!!!

I want you to publicly take back what you has insinuated and apologize for attempting such a ridiculous argument!

The question is....
If you had to deny Christ (as a Christian) or die what would you do?

In other words... some evil force will murder you unless you lie and say your not a Christian. What do you do?

In Luke 12:8-9 it was the apostles that were being sent out by Jesus to unbelievers to ask them to accept Christ. If they rejected Christ.... the unbelievers weren't going to be murdered! If the unbeliever rejected Christ the apostles were instructed to simply "wipe the dust from their feet". Your using this verse as a comparison to the question at hand is grossly in error and should be retracted.

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 05:16 PM
It has nothing to do with it, Knight?

That's a wee bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?


"When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say." -verses 11 and 12

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 05:16 PM
Dee Dee, come on! Are you gonna let Jaltus and cirisme promote this kind of garbage?

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 05:17 PM
Dee Dee, come on! Are you gonna let Jaltus and cirisme promote this kind of garbage?

Scripture is garbage?

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 05:21 PM
Dee Dee, come on! Are you gonna let Jaltus and cirisme promote this kind of garbage?

:) You missed me!!! Of course not... I just thought you were doing such a good job, I didn't want to get in the way... I am plotti... err planning a response to Jaltus' latest botched self-surgery attempt on how it is wrong to lie with falsehood but okay to deceive with truth. Eek!!! How far can he put that foot down his own throat?? Welcome to the world of square circles my friend....

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 05:23 PM
SD,

I'd just shut the door in their face. Why answer?

For that matter, I would not even answer the door.

Knight,

Deny Christ or die, I would die. Are you telling me the 12 did the right thing in denying Christ? Then why did Jesus need to forgive Peter? Why do we castigate the 12 for running away that night?

As for Luke 12, it is about God's providence, witnessing is not even in the picture. What Bible are you reading? Are you even reading a Bible? Get real!

Cir,

Right on, Knight obviously does not read scripture well at all.

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 05:27 PM
Here is an amusing bramble-bush for Ciris and Jaltus:

Matthew 16:20 - Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

Hmmm, what ever do the disciples do??? If they obeyed Christ's command, then they would be denying Him by the shallow thinking that has been going on here in some quarters. Did Christ just contradict Himself?? Were they supposed to confess Him or tell no one?? Don't tell me that such a command was dependant upon changing cirumstances!!! Eeek, we can't have that can we??

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 05:31 PM
edited: Cir's response was better than mine.

You are also still avoiding all my arguments about the 12.

You are also rejecting all martyrdoms that have ever taken place.

You are rejecting Christ just by taking that side of this conversation. Honestly, does Christ mean so little to you that you could deny Him?

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 05:32 PM
SD,

So, Rahab had faith in a God she just learned of, nobody said she was perfect. She was also a harlot, should I emulate that as well?

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 05:33 PM
You've got to be kidding me!


Hmmm, what ever do the disciples do??? If they obeyed Christ's command, then they would be denying Him by the shallow thinking that has been going on here in some quarters.

They wouldn't be denying him. :rolleyes:


Did Christ just contradict Himself??

No.


Were they supposed to confess Him or tell no one??

Eh?


Don't tell me that such a command was dependant upon changing cirumstances!!! Eeek, we can't have that can we??

Believe it or not, silence is not lying! :cool:

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 05:33 PM
Let me ask you guys this, were the martyrs who died for their faith stupid, or were they correct in doing so?

Why?

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by cirisme
Scripture is garbage? Twisting scripture and ripping it from its intended meaning, in a weak attempt to make the scripture mean something other than it's intended.... is garbage!

Which is what you and Jaltus are doing and you both should be ashamed.

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 05:35 PM
Twisting scripture and ripping it from its intended meaning, in a weak attempt to make the scripture mean something other than it's intended.... is garbage!

Prove that we're doing this.

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 05:36 PM
When His time has come, then we are to never deny Him.


Then you are agreeing that some moral imperatives are dependant upon the circumstances, you just disagree about which ones. That has been the cruz of the argument.

This is a nice overemotional distraction though away from your bankrupt and completely internally implosive position on Biblical deceit, which I will return to. While you may have hoped we have forgotten about that, I have not.

And it appears I was right after all about where Ciris was attempting to go with this.

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 05:37 PM
LOL, Knight, you are such an ignorant person. You literally speak (or write, I guess) without knowing what you are talking about.

Please show how you are correct that Luke 12 is about witnessing and not about dneying Christ in front of people.

Here, let me help:

NKJ Luke 12:1 In the meantime, when an innumerable multitude of people had gathered together, so that they trampled one another, He began to say to His disciples first of all, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
2 "For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known.
3 "Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.
4 " And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
5 "But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!
6 "Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins? And not one of them is forgotten before God.
7 "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.
8 " Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God.
9 "But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
10 "And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.
11 "Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say.
12 "For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

Which part of this is about witnessing again?

cirisme
November 25th, 2002, 05:38 PM
My last post for now...

But, Dee Dee, saying "I do not know Him." and not mentioning that Jesus is the messiah are two entirely different things.

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 05:39 PM
Dee Dee,

Cir did not go there, you guys did by saying it was ok to deny Christ.

I am honestly waiting for you to give any sort of a response to my previous post (on lying, deception, et al), just as I am still waiting to a response for my theological argument.

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 05:45 PM
I am honestly waiting for you to give any sort of a response to my previous post (on lying, deception, et al), just as I am still waiting to a response for my theological argument.


You will get the first one... and I and Knight already answered the second part.

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Jaltus
Let me ask you guys this, were the martyrs who died for their faith stupid, or were they correct in doing so?

Why? Jaltus... please try to think this through....

Dying for Christ can be, and has been, a very noble thing to do. Nobody has said otherwise.

But is it ALWAYS wrong to deny Christ? In EVERY situation? And the answer to that is obviously NO!

Truth has no obligation to evil.

Jesus was not obligated to tell Pilate who He was even though the answer was of monumental importance.

Christian martyrs were usually in captivity and it was a very powerful witness for them to die publicly for Christ.

Yet that is all together different from a situation where an evil person or force is going to murder you in your home and then murder your family. Especially if you know or sense that you can thwart this wicked plan by telling a righteous lie!

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 05:50 PM
Yes, it is always wrong to deny Christ. To do so is to deny salvation. What kind of witness to the person killing you is it? A bad one.

Jesus died for you, so why are you unwilling to die for Him?

Dee Dee,

As Freak noted, neither of you EVER answer my theological argument from the character of God other than saying "God is love," which is true but totally irrelevant without some sort of explanation.

Again, is God more love than truth? Is Jesus more love than truth? If so, prove it biblically. Neither of you have attempted that, and that would only be the first step in countering my argument.

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 05:51 PM
Let me make this abundantly clear. Knight may or may not fully agree with me on every point, but we are close. I am not saying that it is "just perfectly okay to deny Christ" to save one's own hide in every single situation that may arise. I am saying, though, that I can envisage situations where it would not be wrong. I am not saying I can envisage a lot, but I can envisage some. Sheepdog's illustration was a good example. I would not sacrifice my life to the whim of a drunk fool. Are there circumstances in which I would, you betcha. I believe in true ethical and moral dilemnas against which are absolute standards must be weighed and evaluated.

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 05:54 PM
Really? I believe in true absolutes against which every situation should be governed, hence calling them ABSOLUTES.

Essentially, you are a relativist, all of you. If Christianity might cost your life without you knowing any good that can come from it, you choose life over Christ.

How can you, in your (our) incredibly finite understanding ever hope to balance what you (we) think is a good reason to die with what God considers to be a good one? Do you think God would put you in a position in which your death would be pointless? If so, you certainly deny Romans 8:28.

Essentially, you all are saying you know better than God does, something I reject as anathema.

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 05:56 PM
Read again, Jaltus.. I said much more than God is love to proving the underlying reasons why some lying is wrong, which is why not all lying is wrong. If you dealt with the underlying reasons why lying is wrong (all of it in your book) you would not be able to with a straight face say that it is morally acceptable to deceive nonbelievers with truth. What kind of a witness is that, you who are so concerned about witness in that last few posts.

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 06:00 PM
Really? I believe in true absolutes against which every situation should be governed, hence calling them ABSOLUTES.


Then how do you deal with Paul's absolute command to obey the government.. you never answered that one really.

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 06:00 PM
Dee Dee,

Please point me to your post. I do not recall any argument of substance that took on my theological argument.

Again, I have no problem saying it is ok to deceive with truth. I have spelled out at least 3 times why it is legitimate, all of which are grounded biblically with real biblical words, not imported English words.

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 06:01 PM
Paul did not give an absolute command. After all, if he did, he did not live up to it by preaching Christ when commanded not to. Sorry, Dee Dee, but I did respond to this one saying why it was not in fact an absolute previously.

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 06:03 PM
Again, I have no problem saying it is ok to deceive with truth. I have spelled out at least 3 times why it is legitimate, all of which are grounded biblically with real biblical words, not imported English words.


No you have hamstrung yourself trying and basically have approved of deceit which makes you logically incoherent.

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 06:04 PM
Paul did not give an absolute command. After all, if he did, he did not live up to it by preaching Christ when commanded not to. Sorry, Dee Dee, but I did respond to this one saying why it was not in fact an absolute previously.



That it circular reasoning. Please show me in Romans 13 where it is qualified whatsoever. You are proving my point. Even absolute commands have inherent grounding in moral hierarchy.

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 06:08 PM
Dee Dee,

Absolutes are that which the entire Bible teaches. I do not take a specific scripture to be an absolute without looking at the idea canoni9cally. What you are doing is called prooftexting and then telling me that is how I must arrive at my absolutes.

TOTALLY FALSE!

Scripture interprets scripture, not a single scripture by itself is forever determinative. What kind of hermeneutical method do you think people use?

Oh, you sure do seem to be a lot of talk without any backing. Do you plan on ever actually dealing with my argument, or do you think it will go away by insulting it to death?

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 06:10 PM
How can you, in your (our) incredibly finite understanding ever hope to balance what you (we) think is a good reason to die with what God considers to be a good one? Do you think God would put you in a position in which your death would be pointless?

I will say Jaltus that you do have a reasonably good point there. However, I do think that the others have made reasonably good points as well. I see this issue differently than the lying issue in that we have explicit Scriptural examples of righteous lies, and do not have explicit Scriptural examples of righteous denial. I will consider this issue further (not the righteous lying one in which you are absoluely incoherent).

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Jaltus
Yes, it is always wrong to deny Christ. To do so is to deny salvation.There you have it folks a perfect example of twisted theology!

Jaltus is actually asserting that if an EVIL person came to your door and said....

"I am here to murder Christians, are you and your family Christians?"

Jaltus thinks that if you lied to save your kids lives you would all the sudden be no longer saved!

Jaltus I am not sure where you got your sick and perverted theology but I would run right back and get a refund.

You continue....
What kind of witness to the person killing you is it? A bad one.Uhg....WHO CARES!!!!!!!!! I am not gonna let some whacko murder my kids just so I can witness to a murderer at my door!

Let me ask you a little follow-up question....
Only because my curiosity is killing me...

Let's say we have a wicked murderer at the door who claims he wants to murder Christians, therefore he wants to know if you and your family are Christians.

Let's assume further that we take your tact and tell him out of courtesy "yep were all Christians in here"!

The murderer then enters the house with force. The murderer aims his shotgun at the youngest of your children and is ready to begin the martyrdom.

At this point you have the physical ability to grab your shotgun and blow his head off to save your family.

Do you do it? Or do you let him execute you and your family?

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 06:11 PM
Dee Dee,

Thank you for your consideration. That objection is only for you as Open Theists can easily deny providential control (although they must admit that they cannot hold to Romans 8:28 then as well, but that is a different thing).

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 06:12 PM
Scripture interprets scripture, not a single scripture by itself is forever determinative.

Exactly, and as argued ad nausueam (and I will defeat your it is okay to deceive with truth nonsense) Scripture gives us two examples of righteous lies as well as the numerous irrefutable arguments raised by Knight and Sheepdog on the issue.

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Jaltus
although they must admit that they cannot hold to Romans 8:28 then as well, but that is a different thingJaltus that in and of itself is a lie and you know it! Not a righteous lie either!

Dee Dee Warren
November 25th, 2002, 06:17 PM
And Jaltus, Knight just made some excellent points as well. I will give this particular issue further consideration. The fact that I may do so does not at all, though you may prematurely presume, do any damage whatsoever to my firm conviction in the moral hiercharchy of Biblical ethics... all it would mean is that I may be considering moving that one particular issue to the complete top of the hierarchy to be operational despite any other conceived situations.

Hank
November 25th, 2002, 06:32 PM
And I haven't forgotten about you Hank, it is just that Jaltus is feeling his oats more than usual, and this is a rare opportunity.

I’m a patient guy. Besides I’m enjoying this thread. Any time you guys start debating the Bible it just proves the old saying “you can prove anything with the Bible”. I love this straining the gnat and swallowing the camel game.

Hank
November 25th, 2002, 06:33 PM
Yeah, Hank, she is too busy not dealing with my arguments to not deal with yours right now.

Now that was really funny. LOL

Jaltus
November 25th, 2002, 06:51 PM
SD,

There is also no rebuke for her being a harlot, just as there is no commendation of her lying. You are arguing from silence, which is exactly what my point about harlotry was, an argument from silence.

"The Bible does not say she was wrong for lying." Well, it does not say she was right for lying either. It says she was right for having faith, that and nothing else.

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Jaltus
LOL, Knight, you are such an ignorant person. You literally speak (or write, I guess) without knowing what you are talking about.

Please show how you are correct that Luke 12 is about witnessing and not about dneying Christ in front of people.

Which part of this is about witnessing again? You can get a clear picture by reading the story from Matthew (which is what cirisme originally referenced)...

Matthew 10:1 And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him

Matthew 10:7 “And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

Matthew 10:13 “If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.

Matthew 10:32 “ Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 “But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 10:40 “ He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.

Knight
November 25th, 2002, 06:53 PM
Jaltus.... Let me ask you a little follow-up question....
Only because my curiosity is killing me...

Let's say we have a wicked murderer at the door who claims he wants to murder Christians, therefore he wants to know if you and your family are Christians.

Let's assume further that we take your tact and tell him out of courtesy "yep were all Christians in here"!

The murderer then enters the house with force. The murderer aims his shotgun at the youngest of your children and is ready to begin the martyrdom.

At this point you have the physical ability to grab your shotgun and blow his head off to save your family.

Do you do it? Or do you let him execute you and your family?