ARCHIVE: Lying is never righteous!

[Dee Dee Warren]

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]

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]

Goodbye Dee Dee.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

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]

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]

Are you retracting that one really dumb comment??

 

[bill betzler]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.