Derf
Well-known member
Yes, you're right.
Can God lie?
- Thread starter Derf
- Start date
Excellent opening post in that thread.
It isn't subjective at all.
I don't understand why you won't answer the question and why you seem to need to squirm around the plain reading of the text of scripture.
The question is too generalized to say with certainty. It would depend upon what is at stake in the case. The laws in this country concerning abortion are almost entirely unjust and so the answer would probably be a yes, but, again it would depend on the specifics.
You understand that it isn't relevant though, right? Do you do any of your other doctrine based on what my opinion is about a particular case study? Is there anyone besides me who forms opinions concerning hypotheticals that determines what your doctrine is? I suspect not. I only answer the question because you're trying to see if I'm willing to be consistent, which is fine, but even that has no bearing on whether your position is at odds with the biblical material.
Ha! You might be able to get away with such tricks with other people but I'm not that stupid. You are the one begging the question, which was my point, and this snide remarks of yours proves that you knew that was the point when you said it. You simply do not get to presuppose the answer to the question being debated and then get to accuse me of being the one doing the question begging. It won't work and it only goes to demonstrate that you've run out of substance.
Saying it doesn't make it so, Derf. The context is the qualifier to add another wouldn't be inacurate but it would be redundant and therefore not necessary.
"....normally thought of as evil....."
.....by people who don't know the biblical material and simply believe what they're taught from the man behind the pulpit.
Yes, directly - by any definition of the word! The action was a lie, the result was reward - period.
I disagree. Lying, for the right reason is wisdom, righteousness and godly.
Slander is one of the evil forms of lying.
The "etc." being like when the midwives lied.
Saying it doesn't make it so, Derf.
How could it possibly be question begging. The word of God is THE authority in Christian doctrine and practice. My citing the plain reading of text is direct evidence. There is no sense at all in which it could be construed as begging the question.
It isn't a game and this nonsense of yours counts as a lie! You KNEW it was false when you said it!
The facgt is that one of us takes our doctrine more seriously than God's own words - and I mean the actual words that came out of God's own mouth, as in with quotation marks, and the other of us does the reverse, which is precisely the entire point! I do not interpret it, I simply read it and take it to mean what it seems to plainly state. You want to say that it doesn't mean what it seems to mean and you want to do so for no reason at all other than your doctrine!
There's your opinion and then there's the word of God that any third grade child can read and understand.
She saved their lives by telling a lie and in that she did a good thing.
Right, she lied so as to not jeopardizing their mission. You position would imply that she did evil that good might come of it, my position makes no such implication. I simply acknowledge what she did and that it was a righteous thing to do.
There is no need for a hypothetical we've been talking about a real one for several days now....
I Kings 22:19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’
Derf
Well-known member
But that's ok, since it was for a righteous cause.
What law is that, exactly?
I understand all of it, but what has that got to do with this?
Agreed, but not the Law of Moses or some municipality's law.
There was no Mosaic Law yet.
Can you tell the difference between the Mosaic Law and a conscience?
That is fine, for after Noah.
But it didn't apply before it was spoken/written.
Cain wasn't slain for his, what we now call, sin.
Don't you have faith in prayer?
God might.
I am glad we agree that since the Mosaic Law was written that lying is a sin.
Exodus 20:16..."Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
Lev 6:2-4..."If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;
3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:
4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,
?
Yes He did, in an era without the Mosaic Law, and to people who were not under the law of Moses.
Without the Law of Moses, it wasn't a sin.
He did for the pregnant Israeli women, and for Rahab.
Our opinions differ.
How was Rahab an Israelite?
How were the pre-Mosaic Law midwives under the Mosaic Law?
I disagree with any conclusion that says that lying is not a sin in the post-Mosaic times.
No thanks.
I don't want to listen to things that you think go against Godliness.
All of them.
Clearly not.
Were they not under the laws of the nation they lived in?
That's "the law."
So what?
Irrelevant.
It was sin, period. Always was sin.
God expressly forbid the death penalty (and the law as a whole, by extension) from Cain to the Flood, and for a reason.
He then REINSTATED the law (the death penalty) IMMEDIATELY AFTER Noah left the ark. The whole world is under that law. Sin leads to death, and the wages of sin is death. If ALL lying was sin, then EVERY lie ever told is something deserving of death.
As you stated, sin is not imputed when there is no law.
But that's the whole point: The world is under the law, whether it's the Mosaic law or not, for ALL of humanity since Noah is descended from Him, and the law God gave to Noah applies to Him AND his descendants.
Thus, if ALL lying is sin, then Rahab AND the Hebrew midwives sinned when they lied, and they did in fact lie, as shown in post #99.
Thus, God rewarded their lies, their sin, greatly. You literally have God rewarding sin, and not punishing.
YOU MAKE GOD UNJUST WITH YOUR POSITION.
That makes you WRONG, for GOD IS NOT UNJUST!
He won't.
God is not in the business of protecting people from the consequences of people's actions.
Quit putting words in my mouth.
Notice how it doesn't condemn lying outright, but lying in specific circumstances.
Notice how He did not condemn lying to defend the innocent, but condemned lying to defend wickedness.
It literally does not matter that they were not under the law of Moses.
They were, in fact, under the law, the law that God gave to Noah right after he got off the Ark.
Yes, it was. Sin is sin regardless of whether one is under a law or not.
You're not even talking about the same thing anymore!
The difference is that I'm right, based on scripture, and you're wrong.
I never said she was. She WAS under the law, though.
I never said they were. They WERE, however, under the law.
Translation: "I'm right and you can't convince me otherwise!"
Translation "I'm right and you can't convince me otherwise! I'm plugging my ears and can't hear you BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!"
I'm not the one who thinks all lying is sin!
@Derf,
Were are just going in circles. If you've got something of substance to add then great. Otherwise, I'll chalk it up as yet another conversation where the disagreement boiled down to conforming ones doctrine to the plain reading of scripture vs conforming the meaning of the text to fit one's doctrine.
Clete
Were are just going in circles. If you've got something of substance to add then great. Otherwise, I'll chalk it up as yet another conversation where the disagreement boiled down to conforming ones doctrine to the plain reading of scripture vs conforming the meaning of the text to fit one's doctrine.
Clete
Derf
Well-known member
And here all this time you guys were complimenting people on their godliness:
Of course.
You're entitled to an opinion.
Sure, if there was one.
But God didn't put any stipulations on nation's laws like He would eventually put on His.
Not God's Law though.
That is the only Law that counts.
If you can't tell the difference we are finished here.
Yet sin, without God's Mosaic Law, is not imputed.
Where did Hs forbid that?
Mosaic Law without Moses?
Interesting.
No Mosaic Law.
Where may I find this Law of Noah?
Neither group was under the Mosaic Law so your point is moot.
No law, no knowledge of sin..."... for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Rom 3:20)
No Law, no sin that breaks the Law.
You are entitled to an opinion.
He is indeed just...that is why He rewarded those at that time because He would one day have to penalize liars.
What happened to that "just God" you referred to?
Jesus said He would answer our prayers. (John 14:13-14)
I disagree.
He has protected me a bunch of times and I pray He will continue to protect me from the actions of others.
Your style of life sounds scary.
Why does an agreement with you offend you?
Keep in mind that the devil is the father of lies and of those who use them, since lying was outlawed.
John 8:44..."Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
There is always Rev 21:8 too..."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."
You are looking for loop-holes.
Notice that His qualification that lying was a sin had not been published yet.
No Law, no sin. (Rom 3:20)
Print said law, please.
Then Rom 3:20 is a lie.
I don't believe it is a lie.
OK, that may be the reason you can't seem to understand me.
Back to you.
But not the Law of Moses that said He forbids lying/bearing false witness...right?
Yeah, your Law of Noah.
Or of Jericho.
But not the Mosaic Law, which condemned lying.
Back to you.
Are you telling the truth now?
How can I ever believe anything else you say after you print something like that?
There was.
Whatever that's supposed to mean.
Law is law.
The world is under the law.
Irrelevant.
ANY law someone is under, he is obligated to keep it, as per Paul.
Please show where the Bible specifies "God's Mosaic Law," rather than just "law."
In the passage I quoted.
Not what I said, you troll.
Liar.
Irrelevant.
In the passage I quoted.
They were under A law. It doesn't matter that they were not under the Mosaic law, specifically.
Correct. It doesn't make sin not sin.
Wrong. You don't seem to understand what "imputed" means.
Your god is not just, but arbitrary.
God cannot reward sin and remain righteous. Your position has your god rewarding sin.
My position has God rewarding something, lying, that is NOT sin, and remaining righteous.
Deceiving one's enemies is NOT WRONG. God Himself does it often throughout the Bible.
Ripping verses out of context is no way to defend one's beliefs.
Jesus was speaking DIRECTLY to His twelve disciples. You are not one of His twelve disciples.
No one cares.
Or, you're lying for effect.
Which IS a sin, by the way.
It's not an agreement, and you knew that before you wrote that. Quit lying, you hypocrite.
Post #80.
Liar.
Post #80.
Nope.
No law, sin not imputed. Not "no sin."
I already did. You ignored it.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Irrelevant.
Maybe if you stopped being irrational, I could understand you. But you haven't said anything rational yet.
The law that says "if you kill a man, by man you must be killed."
Do not bear false witness is an extension of that.
You mock God's word.
Supra.
This sentence is false.
Don't believe me. Believe God's word. It shows that not all lying is sin. If you have a problem with that, take it up with God.
glorydaz
Well-known member
It refers to how we serve the law. No contradiction there.
Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Fair point.
Serve in newness of spirit, meaning "without law." He literally says "not [serve] in the oldness of the letter." He's contrasting serving in spirit, rather than placing oneself under a law.
The "spirit of the law" is a non-biblical cliché that has confused millions of Christians.
But I'll drop this for now, since it's a topic for a different thread. I just wanted to point out the bad cliché.
Derf
Well-known member
@Hoping's sentence was a question, and as long as it was meant as a question, it can't be false or true, but it gets to the whole point of this part of the thread--that if it's ok to lie sometimes, then integrity is out the window. No one can know whether you are lying for a good cause or actually telling the truth. With such a philosophy, you have made it impossible to believe, for instance, young earth creationists when they give arguments for science supporting the Genesis account.
The sentence "This sentence is false" WAS my answer to his question.
It wasn't talking about his question. "This sentence" is referring to the sentence itself.
"This sentence is false" is a self-contradictory statement.
If it's false, then the statement itself becomes true, which makes it false, which makes it true... ad infinitum.
The sentence "This sentence is false" disproves the idea that you lose integrity by lying
Only if lying is always wrong will doing so throw integrity out the window. In other words, once again, you're begging the question that it is.
But that's not the case.
You can lie, and still maintain integrity.
The Hebrew midwives did what was right by lying to Pharaoh. Had they told the truth, then Pharaoh would have gotten angry with them, and had them put to death and replaced with people he could trust, and then thousands of little children would have been slaughtered, but boy howdy, at least the midwives told the truth! /s
No, what they did was the wise move, and as shown throughout the Bible, deceiving the enemies of God is not wrong, especially since God Himself does it.
The principle is do not do evil that good may come of it. They did not do evil by lying to Pharaoh. They did good.
If what they did was evil, then when God rewarded them for it, He would have been rewarding evil. God does not reward evil, and thus, you have a contradiction.
I'm not sure where you came up with the "lying for a good cause" idea, because, as far as I can tell, neither I nor Clete have said "lying for a good cause," but rather to lie when it's the right thing to do.
Sure they can.
It just takes a bit of wisdom.
No, such a philosophy does not make it impossible.
God is the source of wisdom.
It takes wisdom to know when to lie, and even more so to know when NOT to lie, when doing so would not be wrong.
Legalism has a way of doing away with wisdom, and forcing people to resort to process solutions, rather than trusting God and His word, because it gives a false sense of righteousness. Doing what is right is required, even if it means violating a law.
I refer you back to the show I posted earlier, which I recommend listening to in full.
OK, thanks for reading and replying to my post.
I cannot tell lies and still maintain my integrity .
You can't tell the truth and maintain your integrity either, apparently, given how much lying you've been doing.
Thank you for conceding the debate.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Have you ever considered that your "integrity" is a pride issue?
Here's a hypothetical...if you don't mind. Suppose the children were being rounded up for some nefarious reason. Your children were hiding under the house in a "secure" location. When asked if there were any children there, would you think about your "integrity" or your children?