ARCHIVE: Lying is never righteous!

[Jaltus]

Why do you respond to the question of secondary importance and skip the important one? (no, do not answer this, it is rhetorical)
I hope you are getting to my other post.

 

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

Can someone lie by an action?

Previously you said YES to this. Are you changing your stance?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I hope you are getting to my other post.

Which one?? From page 11??

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dee Dee,

Can someone lie by an action?

Previously you said YES to this. Are you changing your stance?

Huh?? What are you talking about??

 

[Jaltus]

Well, I have to go to bed.

Dee Dee,

You said previously that someone can lie or deceive by their actions (remember, you equate the two). You gave the example of military movement and sports. Are you changing your stance?

Can you lie by actions or not?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yes. And I know you are going to then ask they why can't one deny by their words.... and if you do, you missed some major steps.


Hey I've outlasted Jaltus for the night. Knight that has to worth something!!!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Man, my point is that you are assuming a bunch of stuff.

1) Since denial can be nonverbal, even verbal denial must be ongoing in order to be real denial.

I think 1) is false. I think you assume 1) in your argument.

2) Actions show true intent.

I deny 2), saying that people can lie through action as well as through words.

3) Intent is what makes a real denial.

We are arguing 3) in the first place, which makes your assumption of it a circular argument.

Does that make sense? I really cannot make it any more plain.

I have NO idea what you are saying in this post.

It could be the most unclear post I have ever read.

Now, could you answer my question so you can satisfy my nagging curiosity?

QUESTION TO JALTUS:
If a Christian actor/actress plays a part in a play or a movie in which he has to reject Christ as part of the play or movie is he risking his salvation?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I have NO idea what you are saying in this post.

It could be the most unclear post I have ever read.

I was beginning to think it was just me. It was more confusing than one of those Left-Behind charts.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren


I was beginning to think it was just me. It was more confusing than one of those Left-Behind charts.

I have read it six times now because I wanted so badly to respond to it but......

I just can't make heads nor tails of it.

Does he agree with the points in the post? Is he refuting his own points? Is he being rhetorical???? I dont know!!!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Knight,

The strawman is that you are equating lying with denying Christ, which I believe is an illegitimate equation.

Before I answer your situation, answer this: is it wrong for a Christian actor/actress to swear during a performance or use the Lord's name in vain?

Oh man this is great stuff!

Jaltus I am not equating lying with denying Christ, YOU are equating lying with denying Christ!

Both I, and Dee Dee have made clear distinctions.

We have only responded to cirisme's example of having to deny Christ to save ours or others lives.

In fact in one of my last posts to you I made the distinction even more clear so you wouldn't be confused when I wrote...

If a human denies Christ i.e.: a man remains dead in his sin that is the most serious error a person can make and he is destined for hell. I am assuming we all agree about that?

But that isn't what is up for debate!

What IS up for debate is....
What if you can thwart a wicked act and save lives by deceiving the wicked force? Even if it means you have to "act" that you deny Christ even though in your heart you truly do NOT deny Christ.

Do you really think God knows us so little He wouldn't know we were only thwarting the wicked act?

Is our relationship with Christ so shallow it's only based on mouthing words? Don't you think our heart and how we REALLY feel is what makes the "words" have meaning?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I said this on another thread, and directing any further discussion here, so I think it is appropriate to repost his comment here:

The fine distinction became (and if you would like to discuss the point, I invite you over there) - if lying about denying Christ always wrong. Of course actually denying Christ is wrong, since that is what separates the saved from the unsaved... but is there ever a righteous reason for a believer to lie and deny they are a believer. Does that really amount to a "denial" of Christ in every situation?? And is it sinful in every situation?? If so, is it sinful because it is a lie, or because of the subject matter of the lie?? I could go on.... It is really quite easy to just lay down a black and white rule without regards to circumstances, while thinking it is the "tough" road (i.e. Flipper's comment that following Christ is not "easy." However, I think being able to wrestle with a genuine moral dilemna applying the dynamics of Biblical ethics is much more difficult.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

QUESTION TO JALTUS:
If a Christian actor/actress plays a part in a play or a movie in which he has to reject Christ as part of the play or movie is he risking his salvation?

 

[cirisme]

Did Knight ever prove that we're twisting scripture?

Reading the last 9 pages or so, even if he could prove it, it would be the pot calling the kettle black. :doh:

 

[Hank]

Knight and DD have argued that it is okay for Christians to deny Christ sometimes. I would like to ask them when should Christians die instead of deny?

 

[Freak]

Knight,

You asked Jaltus: QUESTION TO JALTUS:
If a Christian actor/actress plays a part in a play or a movie in which he has to reject Christ as part of the play or movie is he risking his salvation?

God looks at the intention of the heart. Denying Jesus our Lord, with the intention of the heart to deny Him, is never right.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

CORRECTION: The position has been that there are rare occasions when it would be morally permissible to LIE about denying Christ. All others occasions would fall into the other category... quite obviously.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
CORRECTION: The position has been that there are rare occasions when it would be morally permissible to LIE about denying Christ. All others occasions would fall into the other category... quite obviously.

Enlighten us?

 

[Hank]

I'm trying to get a feel for the absolute line between when it is okay for a Christian to deny and when it is not. Can you define that line?

 

[cirisme]

Scripture certainly doesn't define that.

:nono:

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I can't imagine every possible circumstance. But if I can think of one where it would be morally permissible, I will not say it NEVER would be, and that is the point. And notice I am not advocating ACTUAL denial which requires INTENT. I am talking about LYING ABOUT DENIAL with the full intent that it is a LIE. I would agree that it would not be permissible in but rare circumstances, but I can imagine some circumstances, such as the one that Knight posited.