ARCHIVE: Lying is never righteous!

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

Does confessing Christ with your mouth save you? Think Romans 10:9ff.

What is the unforgivable sin, Mark 3:29?

You tell me if denying Christ can change your salvation status, even if you are lying about dneying Him, which is nonsensical in the first place. (you either deny Him, which is verbal, or you lie about denying Him, which is verbal, which is still denying Him....denying is a verbal action)

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Dee Dee,

I said:To which you responded: My question was, do you think God could put you at a point where your death would be pointless?

You respond that one could lie to get out of the situation into which God put you, which is true. But is it the right thing to do? By lying you are assuming that God cannot get you out of this or that God cannot use your death, otherwise what justification do you have for the lie? You and Knight have both stated that the only time you can lie is for a "right" cause, but doesn't that lie assume that God cannot correct the situation in some other way?

No, it doesn't because you are assuming that God would not allow a righteous lie to prove your point. It is circular.

My point is that there is no such thing as a "right cause." Your entire case is moot, especially with respect to denying Christ. What circumstance can you possibly be in that God is unable to get you out of whithout the lie?

It is not a matter of God's power, Jaltus that is a red herring.

If you can come up with a circumstance that God cannot get you out of without you lying, you deny omnipotence. Honestly, I really see no way around this objection. I would appreciate a thoughtful response to this.

Again that is a red herring. This is about what we ought to do, not what God can or cannot do.

 

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

Your argument is circular on the same grounds. "We can lie because the Bible shows people lying." "God saves us through our lies."

It is a shame you did not give it the thought I asked for.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Knight,

I previously pointed out that the word translated "so" is just the word "and" in Hebrew. Sorry, you cannot make a deep point from "and."

Give me a break!!! How do you live with yourself? How can you sleep at night????

Read the verse and tell me (NO MATTER HOW you translate "so" in Hebrew) that the Bible isn't demonstrating that God blessed the Hebrew midwives...

Exodus 1:15 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; 16 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.” 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. 22 So Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive.”

"So", "and", "therefore" it doesn't matter! It doesn't change the fact that God dealt well with the Hebrew midwives!!!

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dee Dee,

Does confessing Christ with your mouth save you? Think Romans 10:9ff.

Jaltus, that is a shallow understanding. Are mute people eligible for salvation?

What is the unforgivable sin, Mark 3:29?

It is not a one-time act or Peter was eternally damned by the connection you are trying to make.

You tell me if denying Christ can change your salvation status, even if you are lying about dneying Him, which is nonsensical in the first place. (you either deny Him, which is verbal, or you lie about denying Him, which is verbal, which is still denying Him....denying is a verbal action)

Lying about denying is not nonsensical, if you can't understand the distinction, this could explain a lot. Just as one's confession of Chirst MUST BE REAL (the sinner's prayer saves no one), ONE'S DENIAL OF CHRIST MUST BE REAL. If you say you love me but are lying do you still love me?

 

[Jaltus]

"so" and "therefore" assume a connection of thought with the previous verse. "And" assumes a connection of narration. The explanation for the blessing comes in the later verse I highlighted, not from the lying. You are drawing false conclusions because you are misreading the text.

How about this:

Exodus 1:15 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; 16 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.” 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 And 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. 22 So Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive.”

 

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

I see the distinction you are making, but I again say you are crossing the line of Luke 12.

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.
10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
11 "When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say,
12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say."

I do not see a way out of that. Jesus uses the word "speaks," a verbal action. He does not refer to a heartfelt rejection, just a verbal one.

I understand your objection, and I think it is solid, but I do not think it overcomes this verse.

(by the way, the Mark 3:29 was just to get you thinking, it was nnot meant as a proof or anything)

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I do not see a way out of that. Jesus uses the word "speaks," a verbal action. He does not refer to a heartfelt rejection, just a verbal one.

I understand your objection, and I think it is solid, but I do not think it overcomes this verse.

Then mutes are ineligible from this verse?? Is it okay then if someone lies about denying Christ in sign language?? And poor Peter, you just condemned him to hell.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

What about 1 Timothy 5:8

8But 1161 if any 1536 provide 4306 5719 not 3756 for his own, 2398 and 2532 specially 3122 for those of his own house 3609 , he hath denied 720 5763 the faith, 4102 and 2532 is 2076 5748 worse than 5501 an infidel.

Doesn't sound like any speaking going on there.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

No speaking here either (Titus 1:16):

16They profess 3670 5719 that they know 1492 5760 God; 2316 but 1161 in works 2041 they deny 720 5736 him, being 5607 5752 abominable, 947 and 2532 disobedient, 545 and 2532 unto 4314 every 3956 good 18 work 2041 reprobate 96 .

 

[Jaltus]

Um, Dee Dee, did you even read my post?

I was talking about denying being verbal, so mutes have nothing to do with anything. They cannot deny Christ, I said nothing about getting salvation. Do you need glasses?

Again, I am dealing with scripture, not your fanciful notions. can you deal with a text for once instead of coming up with bizarre and stupid objections?

Peter was restored by Christ in John 21.

Of course, Christ has not risen yet either. Was Luke written for those before the resurrection, or those after it? Your lack of uderstanding authorial intent is part of the issue here.

 

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

Plan on dealing with the scripture I site, or just going to continue to ignore it?

 

[Jaltus]

I am not saying denial by action is impossible, I am TRYING TO GET YOU TO ACTUALLY DEAL WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND!

Can you do that? Or do you feel the need to obfuscate some more?

Honestly, this is a debate about lying verbally, not about denying Christ by actions.

I am started to get frustrated by your total lack of intellectual discipline shown by your lack of sticking with the subject on hand.

Yes, this is a very edited version of what I really want to say.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I was talking about denying being verbal, so mutes have nothing to do with anything. They cannot deny Christ.

Really?? You mean they can't write it?? That wouldn't count. Is your head as wooden as your interpretion

 

[Jaltus]

Are you in the same conversation I am?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Honestly, this is a debate about lying verbally, not about denying Christ by actions.

Duh Jaltus, and I am showing that your verses are not dealing with a wooden verbal one-time denial (that is a lie in the first place). You don't have to edit your posts... I get a kick out of mocking your melodrama.

 

[Jaltus]

Um, the verses I quoted specifically said "speaking" Did you miss that earlier?

 

[Jaltus]

By the way, using Strong's is a sure way to show you are wrong.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Um, and who's using the English to prove their point?? I showed you that the word is not limited to speaking.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

By the way, using Strong's is a sure way to show you are wrong.

I wasn't using Strong's for the defintion Jaltus.. only as a directive to where words appear. I am letting the context of the text itself give me the meaning. Titus 1:15-16 is particularly a butt-biter for your contention.