C
cirisme
Guest
I guess that someone will try to find a loophole in every rule.
:down: :nono:
I guess that someone will try to find a loophole in every rule.
:down: :nono:
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Hmm, like Jaltus saying that it is okay to deceive someone as long as you use a truth to do it??
The context of the verse everyone is bandying around is belief versus unbelief. Not one act of forced/faked denial from a believer.
The context of the verse everyone is bandying around is belief versus unbelief. Not one act of forced/faked denial from a believer.
C
cirisme
Guest
I don't believe a denial can truly be forced.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
You have never been tortured obviously. I can easily imagine one can be. And it is not genuine.
C
cirisme
Guest
You assume too much.
C
cirisme
Guest
Also, what of the thousands upon thousands(perhaps millions) through the centuries that were tortured, yet never rejected the one who died for them?
Y
Yxboom
Guest
DDW has forced my hand and as being controlled by the preterist hose-beast I ask, if lying is amoral as Knight has proposed than having moral permission or not would be irrelevant else lying in fact is a moral act. Which is it?
Yes, I did prove that.
Would you like me to do it again?
Your wrong... scripture says....Originally posted by cirisme
Scripture certainly doesn't define that.
God knows our hearts.
He knows if we were coerced into denying Christ, or if we are ACTING, or if our heart was "pure" and we were REALLY denying Christ.
When God sees Richard Burton blaspheming God in the pre-conversion portion of the movie "The Robe" God doesn't say to Himself.... "Well I guess Richard Burton is going to hell!"
God is smart enough to read Richard Burtons heart and understand that Richard Burton was ACTING!!!!!!!
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Yx... let's see. I think it all depends upon how we define "lying" and I am not trying to pull a fast one. If lying is simply (to use a very, very limited definition to get the party started) the utterance of something that is not true, it is morally neutral. I sit in my office and utter untruths all the day long and I have not sinned, for no one heard it, and I am saying inane things like, "I own a Weimeraner named Gladys." The moral aspects come into play when we factor in intent and effect. I don't know if this is where Knight was coming from or not... but that is thus far how I see it.
I know you have been done this road before, so I beg your indulgence.. do you not agree that Rahab and the Hebrew midwives are examples of righteous lies??
I know you have been done this road before, so I beg your indulgence.. do you not agree that Rahab and the Hebrew midwives are examples of righteous lies??
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
And now that I have sucked you on, don't you dare go yellow and bail out of this thread
BRILLIANT!! Perfect description and that is what I have been asserting all along.
If lying is described as: not telling the truth - then lying is morally neutral.
In this sense lying is like killing. Both are morally neutral until SPECIFIC circumstances are applied. THEN, when SPECIFIC circumstances are applied lying or killing can be viewed as absolutely wrong OR absolutely right.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Did you see that everyone? I am just as I have been claiming all along
And it is even better that I managed to composed a brilliant post with the phrase, "I own a weimeraner named Gladys" in it. That makes it all the more brilliant.
I never said lying and killing were the same in ALL respects. What I said was....
If lying is described as: not telling the truth - then lying is morally neutral.
In this sense lying is like killing. Both are morally neutral until SPECIFIC circumstances are applied. THEN, when SPECIFIC circumstances are applied lying or killing can be viewed as absolutely wrong OR absolutely right.
God doesn't lie because God cannot be coerced.
You continue...
I can think of literally thousands of scenarios in which it would be OK to "act" as if you denied Christ. Not only would God not hold you accountable for these false denials but He would be GLAD you thwarted the wicked.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
DDW I will give you the platform you so have desired with this question.
If lying is not an immoral act, but one that God Himself can participate in as well (based solely on your definition). Than, say....the prophecies concerning Matthew 24 could have not come to past as circumstance dictated and Jesus (as God) would be absolved of any guilt as a liar and remain fully within your definition of righteous as the Hebrew midwives and Rahab, et al correct?
Why do you premise yourself that all the events concerning the Great Tribulation had to in fact have taken place regardless of any outside influences or circumstance else God would be unjust and in your own words.....a liar. Beings a liar would not make him unrighteous anyway so the claim against Him as guilty of wrong doing would be just as unfounded.
If lying is not an immoral act, but one that God Himself can participate in as well (based solely on your definition). Than, say....the prophecies concerning Matthew 24 could have not come to past as circumstance dictated and Jesus (as God) would be absolved of any guilt as a liar and remain fully within your definition of righteous as the Hebrew midwives and Rahab, et al correct?
Why do you premise yourself that all the events concerning the Great Tribulation had to in fact have taken place regardless of any outside influences or circumstance else God would be unjust and in your own words.....a liar. Beings a liar would not make him unrighteous anyway so the claim against Him as guilty of wrong doing would be just as unfounded.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Welll I warned him, but he insists that he does want me to spank him on this one... sorry to do it Yx, but you are asking for it.
Ahh, I got it.
Dee Dee is assuming: 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.
Dee Dee assumes: 2) Actions show true intent.
I deny 2), saying that people can lie through action as well as through words.
Dee Dee assumes: 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.
This would actually be clarifying my 2nd attempt to explain this.
Dee Dee is assuming: 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.
Dee Dee assumes: 2) Actions show true intent.
I deny 2), saying that people can lie through action as well as through words.
Dee Dee assumes: 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.
This would actually be clarifying my 2nd attempt to explain this.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
As George Castanza would say, "It isn't a lie if you believe it is true."
Knight,
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?
Knight, you were equating lying with lying about the intent of denying Christ. My point is that verbal denial is all that is called for in Luke 12, there is nothing dealing with intent. You cannot ASSUME your argument in order to prove it, which is what you are doing when you equate what I call denial with lying. You are glossing over the distinction we are arguing about in order to say that there is no distinction. That is an illegitimate argument.
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?