bill betzler
New member
Reminds me of the OT Jews who killed a pig and ate it and said, "this is sure good beef."
It's a joke, don't try looking it up.
Oh, and knight NEVER dealt with Luke 12, he kept sidebarring onto Matthew 10.
He is ducking the issue, trying to say that because the parallel account in Matthew deals with witnessing, then Luke must as well.
All that argument shows is that Knight does not know how to read. Luke wrote Luke for a specific purpose. He placed those words in a specific context. Why are you using Matthew to argue against Luke instead of using Luke to argue against Matthew?
All Knight is doing is the expedient, going with whatever helps him in the argument instead of having a real reason. If he had a legitimate reason, he would have responded to my criticism of him about 5-8 pages ago.
He is ducking the issue, trying to say that because the parallel account in Matthew deals with witnessing, then Luke must as well.
All that argument shows is that Knight does not know how to read. Luke wrote Luke for a specific purpose. He placed those words in a specific context. Why are you using Matthew to argue against Luke instead of using Luke to argue against Matthew?
All Knight is doing is the expedient, going with whatever helps him in the argument instead of having a real reason. If he had a legitimate reason, he would have responded to my criticism of him about 5-8 pages ago.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Ah a smorgasboard of Jaltus errors to deal with. So many errors, so little time.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
That's it Sheepdog. Distract him into saying something else really dumb.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
No Hank there would be more to it than that. And you worded it imprecisely... I can imagine situation where it would be morally permissible to LIE and say one did not believe when one actually did still believe. The denial of Christ that leads to damnation is ultimately real unbelief.
This I think, though, is a red herring to this thread and an emotional side show. No one is saying that it is just peachy to LIE about one's faith willy-nilly. But if I can imagine ONE situation where it would be morally permissible, then we cannot say it is ALWAYS morally evil. But this does bring us right back to the lying issue again. If of course lying can never be morally right, then we never get to this issue to begin with.
This I think, though, is a red herring to this thread and an emotional side show. No one is saying that it is just peachy to LIE about one's faith willy-nilly. But if I can imagine ONE situation where it would be morally permissible, then we cannot say it is ALWAYS morally evil. But this does bring us right back to the lying issue again. If of course lying can never be morally right, then we never get to this issue to begin with.
I'll admit I was wrong.....it is Hezekiah 4.
SD,
I think he probably did something wrong. Although the question is, was Sarah actually his sister?
Genesis 20:
11 Abraham replied, "I said to myself, 'There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.'
12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.
SD,
I think he probably did something wrong. Although the question is, was Sarah actually his sister?
Genesis 20:
11 Abraham replied, "I said to myself, 'There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.'
12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Excusing deceit while claiming that it is never morally right to lie is horribly inconsistent.
That's right, that is why you don't respond to my arguments, you are too busy trying to nitpick hoping you can actually escape the force of my grammatical and theological arguments, none of which you have dealt with:
1) The word for lying or deception in both Greek and Hebrew means to say something false.
2) Jesus is the truth, and therefore and untruth would be the opposite of Jesus. Therefore, according to God's own character, since that is the standard of righteousness, untruth is always morally wrong, always a sin.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
You have said repeatedly it is permissible to deceive someone with truth.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
If you missed the point Jaltus.. I stated that speaking an untruth (or acting in untruth) in and of itself is morally neutral. It is the added stuff that brings in morality, such as intent, situation, and recipient. It is you that is trying to shoehorn everything into one category not I, thus, brute consistency is your hobgoblin, not mine.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Am I sinning if I sit on my bed and tells the walls about Gladys my weimeramer?? It is not true.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Sheepdog..... LOLOLOLOL... now that is good too!!! You are producing fodder for posts of the day... you were my first remember?
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Ah, Gladys.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
No. That was easy. And you have worded it imprecisely once again... and once again, we are begging the question for the foundational issue... is it ever moral to lie, which is in fact the topic of this thread, and which in fact, I hope to concentrate more on (I did plan on posting something substantive tonight, but I am stricken with a terrible headache - probably from trying to follow Jaltus' arguments 
And again let me make myself clear once again. This is one question that quite honestly is the first time I have every really done any serious consideration of (which I have done throughout this conversation), and thus, I am not interested in a full out debate on this particular question, unlike the more foundational issue of whether or not it is ever moral to lie, which I have thoroughly considered. Knight appears to have thought this one through much more thoroughly than I, and I am very interested in hearing his perspective and interaction with you guys on it. I am considering though posting some comments on Matthew 10 becuase much too much weight is being placed upon this verse in the context of the limited parameters of this discussion.
And again let me make myself clear once again. This is one question that quite honestly is the first time I have every really done any serious consideration of (which I have done throughout this conversation), and thus, I am not interested in a full out debate on this particular question, unlike the more foundational issue of whether or not it is ever moral to lie, which I have thoroughly considered. Knight appears to have thought this one through much more thoroughly than I, and I am very interested in hearing his perspective and interaction with you guys on it. I am considering though posting some comments on Matthew 10 becuase much too much weight is being placed upon this verse in the context of the limited parameters of this discussion.