ARCHIVE: Lying is never righteous!

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

There is no such thing as morally neutral. Either something is done in faith or not. Try reading Romans. I hate to tell you, but everything IS black or white. "Morally neutral" is just another way of saying "morally bancrupt."

 

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

How about dealing with Luke 12 instead, since that is the ACTUAL passage in question?

You and Knight have been ducking Luke 12 for 2 days. I will concede Matthew 10. Now deal with the issue at hand.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

So I am sinning with Gladys?? Is that what you are saying Jaltus?? Or are you then just conceding that Gladys is a good lie?? Your views constantly implode upon themselves.

You and Knight have been ducking Luke 12 for 2 days. I will concede Matthew 10. Now deal with the issue at hand.

Back up that thare horsey and check them thare hooves. I have been ducking no such thing. You have totally assumed that I am going to argue about whether or not the context of Matthew 10 is witnessing or not yada, yada, yada.. and that is not IT at all, so perhaps you should wait to hear what I was going to say before yapping about it. Excuse the testiness but I really do have a headache that is causing one eyeball to shut and the other to remain open. It is a gruesome sight.

And the issue at hand is the primary subject of this thread..... I am not obligated to go off a-hunting on this rabbit trail with you though weimeraners are fine bird dogs.

 

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

I hope and pray you get better.

Headaches suck.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thank you. They sure do. I need to get away from this computer and finally get to bed, but I feel too crappy to get up from this seat where my rear appears to have sprouted roots and planted itself.

 

[Jaltus]

Hey, did you get my e-mail?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

yeah, I resent the link.... sorry about that. I have another link actually to find and send as welll.

 

[Jaltus]

Done and replied to.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Again, before I answer your question, answer this:

Is it wrong for a Christian to swear or use the Lord's name in vain in a play?

I kind of already answered this in another post but maybe you missed it. (I understand because this thread is moving fast!)

I don't think God looked down at Richard Burton in the pre-conversion part of the movie "The Robe" and said to Himself... "Well, I guess Richard Burton is going to hell!"

So, I would say "no" it's no generally NOT wrong for a Christian to use the Lord's name in vain in a movie. That being said.... I think that if the Christian is using the Lord's name in vain in an immoral ungodly movie then I think it would be wrong. Once again the whole intention thing rears its ugly head.

What do you think Jaltus? Can a Christian portray (in a movie or play) a person denying Christ without losing his or her salvation?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by cirisme
Also, what of the thousands upon thousands(perhaps millions) through the centuries that were tortured, yet never rejected the one who died for them?

Very good point.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jaltus
False, Knight here is assuming his argument.

Telling untruth is anathema to the character of God. Jesus Himself is the TRUTH, therefore UNTRUTH is the opposite of Jesus.

How can you not see this? Why do you not respond to this?

Why don't I respond?????

I have been responding to this exact point for three days now!!!

I should respond with an equally unfair assertion about you, but I will not. I will not stoop to that level.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Dee Dee,

How about dealing with Luke 12 instead, since that is the ACTUAL passage in question?

You and Knight have been ducking Luke 12 for 2 days. I will concede Matthew 10. Now deal with the issue at hand.

Jaltus if you accuse me one more time of not dealing with Luke 12, I am going to ban you. And I am serious! I have dealt with Luke 12 several times in fact on page 22 after you had yet again accused me of not dealing with Luke 12 - I wrote...

I have already dealt with Luke 12, why do you keep claiming I haven't?

But let me deal with Luke 12 in yet ANOTHER way.

Luke 12 in NO WAY relates to a specific situation where a wicked force can be thwarted by a lie or by deception (same thing). Also Luke 12 in NO WAY relates to a specific situation in where other lives are at stake i.e., The Hebrew midwives, the hiding Jewish family or the crazed man who wants to kill your kids.

Luke 12 does not relate to these dilemmas does it Jaltus?

If you reject the content of my response that's fine (just say so!) but PLEASE stop asserting that I haven't responded! It is deceitful, I make no such claims against you and I would appreciate the same respect.

 

[Jaltus]

Knight,

I responded to that, which you never answered. I also questioned you about using Matthew to interpret Luke, which you never answered.

Maybe that is not the same thing as never answering, but when you make posts going down side trails instead of dealing with the topic at hand, I can only wonder why.

Perhaps this is moving too fast.

But seriously, you are thinking of banning me because I claim that you do not answer my arguments? That is pretty sad, Knight, that you would ban someone for such a thing. I realize it is well within your right, but still sad.

Knight,

Could you point to your response that deals with my argument from God's character, specifically dealing with Jesus is the truth. I must have missed it.

 

[Jaltus]

Oh, I have never heard of the movie "the Robe," so I had no idea that this was supposed to answer my question.

I disagree, Knight, right there. I think it is wrong to actually sin even if it is the portraying of someone else's sin. Things such as swearing and using the Lord's name in vain are never right.

For someone who argued for moral absolutes, it seems to me that you have very few things you consider absolutes.

So, can someone portray a denial of Christ without losing salvation?

To be totally honest, I don't know. But I sure would not want to risk it.

 

[Prisca]

Jaltus,

You said, “Oh, I have never heard of the movie "the Robe," so I had no idea that this was supposed to answer my question.

I disagree, Knight, right there. I think it is wrong to actually sin even if it is the portraying of someone else's sin. Things such as swearing and using the Lord's name in vain are never right.”

I think you spoke too quickly here, Jaltus. The movie “The Robe” is a wonderful testimony to faith in Christ. How, in a movie that glorifies God, could it be wrong to portray the evil characters?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Knight,

I responded to that, which you never answered. I also questioned you about using Matthew to interpret Luke, which you never answered.

Again that simply isn't true.

You continue...

Maybe that is not the same thing as never answering, but when you make posts going down side trails instead of dealing with the topic at hand, I can only wonder why.

Rejecting my argument is fine with me, that's part of the game. But continually saying I haven't responded is out of line.

But seriously, you are thinking of banning me because I claim that you do not answer my arguments? That is pretty sad, Knight, that you would ban someone for such a thing. I realize it is well within your right, but still sad.

Jaltus, I have spent much time on this thread. I have expended much effort. I take a topic like this somewhat seriously. For you to continually claim I haven't responded to something I have responded to 10 times only demonstrates that you are not serious about this debate.

Jaltus do you realize how many posts on this thread you have NOT responded to? Yet you do not hear me continuously claiming you are avoiding me. I might remind you, or take a quick jab and ask why you don't respond but I don't simply ignore the content of the thread and sound like a broken record claiming you have not responded.

You continue....

Knight,

Could you point to your response that deals with my argument from God's character, specifically dealing with Jesus is the truth. I must have missed it.

I don't know what your talking about.

 

[Jaltus]

Becky,

How is it right to use the Lord's name in vain?

[thought process](of course, this actually begs the question, to be honest, since it would be "using the Lord's name in vain" in order to promote the Lord)[/thought process]

Ok, strike that part, let us stick with the swearing. I would say that swearing is never right. Mind you, this refers to gratuitous usage and not real, such as actually telling someone they are going tell hell and using a specific word to convey such a message.

 

[Jaltus]

Knight,

I said:

Telling untruth is anathema to the character of God. Jesus Himself is the TRUTH, therefore UNTRUTH is the opposite of Jesus.

To which you replied:

I have been responding to this exact point for three days now!!!

This entire post is in regards to you not understanding this which I said:

Could you point to your response that deals with my argument from God's character, specifically dealing with Jesus is the truth. I must have missed it.

You responded:

I don't know what your talking about.

Now I, Jaltus, am confused. Did you repond to my argument from God's character (specifically embodied in the person of Christ) or not? I am really at a loss.

 

[Jaltus]

Follow up on my post to Becky:

1 right + 1 wrong != 1 bigger right

Does that make sense?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Oh, I have never heard of the movie "the Robe," so I had no idea that this was supposed to answer my question.

Well, like I said you probably missed it and thats OK.

You continue...

I disagree, Knight, right there. I think it is wrong to actually sin even if it is the portraying of someone else's sin. Things such as swearing and using the Lord's name in vain are never right.

For someone who argued for moral absolutes, it seems to me that you have very few things you consider absolutes.

I really think this is a shallow and shortsighted way to view God and His relationship with us. Do you REALLY think God is upset at little Timmy or little Suzie for portraying Pharaoh in the church play??? Are you serious? You really think it's sinful for the actor who gets the Judas role in the movie or church play?

Do you think God is so weak He cannot see our intentions in our hearts???

I respectfully disagree with you and I ask you to reconsider your response.

You continue....

To be totally honest, I don't know. But I sure would not want to risk it.

Thankfully I am not under the bondage you are under.