ARCHIVE: Lying is never righteous!

[Jaltus]

Knight,

It is not wrong to portray someone who is evil, it is wrong to portray a Christian who denies Christ. I thought that was what we were talking about.

Neither Pharoah nor Judas did such a thing, for neither was ever really saved to begin with. I thought we were dealing with a different issue completely.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Now I, Jaltus, am confused. Did you repond to my argument from God's character (specifically embodied in the person of Christ) or not? I am really at a loss.

I responded by telling you that just because God is truth doesn't mean that there are times that God doesn't want US to use deception to thwart evil i.e., the Hebrew midwives.

 

[Jaltus]

Knight,

So you are telling me that God wants us to go against His character?

Isn't that pretty much the definition of sin?

 

[Yxboom]

Knight threatening a banning? :shocked:

 

[Jaltus]

And me, no less!

 

[Jaltus]

Evidently if you are slightly "spunky," you can get banned. If you are outragously obnoxious, you are made a mod.


Hmmm, I am not even going to speculate on what that makes Knight

 

[Yxboom]

It has been great knowing you Jaltus. My email is yxboom@theologyonline.com if you ever want to talk.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Knight,

It is not wrong to portray someone who is evil, it is wrong to portray a Christian who denies Christ. I thought that was what we were talking about.

Neither Pharoah nor Judas did such a thing, for neither was ever really saved to begin with. I thought we were dealing with a different issue completely.

What sort of a microscope do you use to split these hairs?

So now are you saying it's sinful for little Johnny to portray Peter in the church play? Will God need to restore little Johnny after the second act? Jaltus, you represent legalism gone amuck!

But based on your answer I assume now maybe you do think its OK for a Christian to use the Lord's name in vain if they are just acting?

 

[Jaltus]

SD,

Show an example of Jesus using untruth.

Genre considerations are in order as well, so parables are right out.

 

[Jaltus]

Knight,

I realized what "in vain" meant. As long as it is for the Lord's glory, it is not in vain, is it?

As for legalism, not really, no. Biblicism yes, legalism, no.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Evidently if you are slightly "spunky," you can get banned. If you are outragously obnoxious, you are made a mod.


Hmmm, I am not even going to speculate on what that makes Knight

slightly "spunky," ???

You have no shame!

I have been very fair with you on this thread. You are deceitful and intentionally disruptive.

 

[Jaltus]

Oh, it is not splitting hairs, it is called nuancing. These are eternal matters we are dealing with, so being careful in speech (writing) is very important.

 

[Jaltus]

Knight,

IT WAS A JOKE! Note the wink!

 

[Jaltus]

As for disruptive, you must be kidding. I have been the lone one debating my side for a large portion of the thread. I have been debating Dee Dee on this nonstop. How is it disruptive?

Good grief, Knight, I think you need to calm down a bit.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Knight,

I realized what "in vain" meant. As long as it is for the Lord's glory, it is not in vain, is it?

As for legalism, not really, no. Biblicism yes, legalism, no.

Let me expose your legalism.....

When asked if one risks their salvation by portraying a person denying Christ knowing full well it is an "act" and not actually true you respond....

To be totally honest, I don't know. But I sure would not want to risk it.

That my friend is PURE legalism.

 

[Yxboom]

Jaltus is sooo gone.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Knight,

IT WAS A JOKE! Note the wink!

Having someone claim about seven times that I haven't responded to them even though I HAVE responded DIRECTLY several times in several ways is hardly something to "joke" about. I have not treated you in this manner I expect the same from you.

 

[Jaltus]

LOL, legalism is not wanting to risk losing salvation?

i thought legalism was holding to OT law and trying to earn salvation through it.

I am not looking to earn salvation, I am trying to hold onto what is already mine. It is called "making your call sure."

 

[Jaltus]

Knight,

I am done responding to you for a while. Evidently we are unable to communicate to one another at all.

After Thanksgiving I'll come back and maybe we can pick up from there.

 

[Jaltus]

SD,

Scripture?