D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
I will get into that more in my substantive post.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Then you must be fond of me beyond belief. Remember, I am married.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Okay now on to address some objections.
First, again to make it painfully clear. My position is that the Biblical sin of “lying” is simply immoral deception. Of course that means necessarily that there is deception (i.e. lying) that is not immoral. Everyone here has already conceded to that fact. We have all agreed that deception in war and sports plays is not immoral. I think we would all agree that deception in altering one’s physical appearance by wearing a toupee is not immoral, though hair plugs certainly are
However, in this concession that there is outright deception that is not immoral, the very title of this thread is invalidated. Not all lying (which is by definition – deception) is unrighteous.
Now some here have attempted to equivocate by saying that not all deception is lying. That does not relieve the difficulty for that same scenario also plays right into my hand. Once it is conceded that not all deception is immoral, or that not all deception is lying, I have won a major point. All I have to say at that point then is the Rahab’s deception was the moral kind as was the midwives. All that has been done is a sleight of hand switcheroo in which the terms immoral and lying are made equal and the term deception is rendered equivocal. It is a semantical distinction that makes no real difference in this discussion…. A rose by another name……. as I will go on to further prove.
However, though, along these lines, I was invited to look at a dictionary. Okay, I accept that invitation.
Here is the dictionary definition of “lie”:
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
Or here is one which is exactly what I have been saying all along:
To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; to say or do that which is intended to deceive another, when he a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation.
(Webster's Revised
Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)
Here are the synonyms:
be untruthful, beguile, break promise, bull, con, concoct, deceive, delude, dissemble, dissimulate, distort, dupe, equivocate, exaggerate, fabricate, fake, falsify, fib, forswear, frame, fudge, invent, jazz, jive, make believe, malign, misguide, misinform, misinstruct, mislead, misrepresent, misspeak, misstate, overdraw, palter, perjure, pervert, phony up, plant, prevaricate, promote, put on, queer, snow, soft-soap, string along, victimize
(Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
Notice that “deceive” is synonymous with “lie,” thus the hair-splitting that has been attempted just doesn’t fly. Generally speaking, lying is deceiving, deceiving is lying. Thus, it ispatently obviously there is lying that is not sinful, it is at least morally benign, and I would argue at times, morally righteous.
Also note that by definition lying is not restricted to just uttering an outright falsehood by any action which is intended to mislead another. Thus a true statement can still be a lie, despite the gerrymandering here to say otherwise.
In the Biblical text, it is defined similarly…
Shaqar (Hebrew) – to do or deal falsely, be false, trick, cheat
Sheqer (Hebrew) - lie, deception, disappointment, falsehood
1a) deception (what deceives or disappoints or betrays one)
1b) deceit, fraud, wrong
1b1) fraudulently, wrongfully (as adverb)
1c) falsehood (injurious in testimony)
1c1) testify falsehood, false oath, swear falsely
1d) falsity (of false or self-deceived prophets)
1e) lie, falsehood (in general)
1e1) false tongue
1f) in vain
Kazab (Hebrew) - a lie, untruth, falsehood,
deceptive thing
1) to lie, tell a lie, be a liar, be found a liar, be in vain, fail
1a) (Qal) liar (participle)
1b) (Niphal) to be proven to be lying
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to lie, tell a lie, tell a lie with, deceive
1c2) to disappoint, fail
1d) (Hiphil) to make a liar, prove to be a liar
Pseudos (Greek) -
1) a lie
2) conscious and intentional falsehood
3) in a broad sense, whatever is not what it seems to be
4) 3a) of perverse, impious, deceitful precepts
Psuedomai (Greek) -
1) to lie, to speak deliberate falsehoods
2) to deceive one by a lie, to lie to
Again, the words “lie” and “deceive” are synonymous in many cases (there may be some subtleties that are not germane to this discussion).
The equivocating of any differences between lying and deception though is crushed by the Biblical text in any event. They are both stated as being sinful and to be avoided (if one is taking the position advocated by the opening post) .
Leviticus 19:11, “Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another.”
The fact is that the Biblical sin of lying is tied into the Biblical ideas of justice and equity which are the cornerstone of truth. Certain lying is wrong because it violates those principles. There are certain times when telling the “truth” would be wrong if it violated those underlying principles which the NT summarizes even further as love (Romans 13:10). The Biblical concept of truth is not merely the sterile reciting of correct data, it is the administration of justice, mercy, equity, and love. For nonexhaustive examples:
Deut. 32:4: He is the Rock. His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice.
(and note that the above verse neatly explains how it is perfectly within God’s character, who does not lie, to use lies in the administration of His justice… God does not immorally lie, but He has instructed, and commended, and used moral lies)
Ps 106:3 – Blessed are they who maintain justice, who constantly do what is right.
Is 1:15-17 – When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.
Hab. 1:3-4 – Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds. Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.[/B]
Zech 7:9 – This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.’
Matthew 23:23 – But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.
Now onto to some specific comments made here:
By Jaltus:
I have explained that above. God does not immorally deceive (i.e. lie). You are assuming that is the only meaning that can be poured into that word. My definition of the Biblical sin of lying certainly DOES take that into account.
I had also made a point about Romans 13 as follows:
To which Jaltus replied:
Jaltus did not interact with my point at all, which was, that opponents of my position keep pointing to passages which condemn lying without mentioning any exceptions or narrowing of definition. So, I point to two passages which mention that we should obey our rulers without mentioning any exceptions. Yes, Acts 5:29, then makes explicit an exception, but Paul nor Solomon never did in their direct addresses on this subject. I make the point that within the contextual framework of the Bible, they did not need to, because it would be obvious to the audience that greater moral imperatives would trump this one moral imperative. The fact that Acts 5:29 grants an “exception” shows that obedience to our rulers is in fact a standard that must be weighed relative to our circumstances.
This is a Biblical paradigm that can be then applied to other moral dilemmas in typical “remez” (Jewish interpretative analogy) fashion.
Now to Hank I had made the point:
To which Hank replied:
Now first, I want to point out that Hank’s original accusation towards me is that what I was advocating was the definition of relativism. I disproved that and showed that Hank did not really understand what relativism was, at least by standard definition today. I thought he would then concede that error, but he did not. Instead he sets a straw man ablaze. In fact, Hank is gored on his own argument, for if one can propose something that is more immoral, that means there is an outside absolute standard for morality by which we are measuring the morality of the choices within the situation with which we are faced. However, though, the premise of his entire argument is flawed in the real world outside of hypotheticals. The “control” scenario or the “worse” option is not something that we choose, rather it is inherent to the moral dilemma with which we are faced. The only thing we are morally constrained to choose is the something “better” as measured in light of the something “worse” that is forced upon us. For example, the external circumstance that the midwives were faced with was the immoral command to murder the Hebrew baby boys and the implicit threat to their own lives. They chose the greater good of using moral deception to save lives.
Hank then asked:
The ends justifies the means in EVERY situation. Say, I was cold and needed a fire. I could light up a stack of money (for I am so filthy rich that money means nothing to me) or I could light some firewood. It would be immoral for me to light up the money when it could be used for much more righteous purposes. If you need to go to the store, you could drive your car, or you could frivolously rent a stretch limousine. The intended goal would justify or illegitimize the means you use to reach it, that is true for every situation.
Jaltus also commented:
I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but I do disagree with the route you took to get there. Are you saying that morality depends upon the expectations of the people involved?? Your reasoning would make lying by a known liar acceptable since everyone expects them to lie. I agree that the Biblical sin of lying does not include those above items. You are trying to seek some solace by calling those actions “deceptions” rather than lies, but that is simply semantics. They are untruths, but they are morally benign.
That is an irrelevant example. Her intent was to spill the beans, but the Nazi’s misunderstood. Jesus made it clear that we are often judged by intents of the heart rather than actual outcomes, so her intent to reveal the location of the Jews was immoral (without getting into the moral accountability of children).
This brings us back to Bill Clinton (and Bill B. if you really don’t know what I am talking about, PM me and I will explain to you what happened). According to you, what he did (“I did not have intercourse with that woman”) was not a lie or wrong. Are you willing to be that consistent?
Then I guess we were all hard on Slick Willy for no reason at all. And who is making up their own definitions?? See above lexigraphical information to show that it is not me. Something does not have to false on its face to be lie or a deception. Say you have a standing rule that your teenage son cannot attend parties. He tells you that he is just going over to his friends house to hang out with some friends. He does not tell you those friends are throwing a party. He has lied to you (deceived you) with a true statement. The Bible clearly recognizes sins of omission (James 4:17) as well as commission. By your reasoning, technically, Annais and Saphira did not lie. They did sell their land for that amount, they just didn’t say that they sold it for that amount + (x).
Orwell would be proud. That makes no sense whatsoever. So it is okay for me to deceive people as long as I devise a way to use truthful (but incomplete – is that then really truthful??) statements to do it. I would never go into business with someone with that philosophy.
Now Bill had said that I merely hand-waved his Scriptures away. Hardly. It is he who has not dealt with mine. The reason that I have not answered his point about whether or not Rahab possessed eternal life is because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is that she is praised for faith because of her actions with the spies (which included her lie), and is never chastised for her lie. What is relevant is that both before and after the lie, the midwives are praised for their fear (which requires faith and trust) of God with no chastisement for their lie. This is just like the Romans 13 situation. Paul makes no exception to his rule, but in Acts we see there is an exception. It is the same situation here, we have Biblical examples of righteous lies. The prima facie case is mine.
First, again to make it painfully clear. My position is that the Biblical sin of “lying” is simply immoral deception. Of course that means necessarily that there is deception (i.e. lying) that is not immoral. Everyone here has already conceded to that fact. We have all agreed that deception in war and sports plays is not immoral. I think we would all agree that deception in altering one’s physical appearance by wearing a toupee is not immoral, though hair plugs certainly are
However, in this concession that there is outright deception that is not immoral, the very title of this thread is invalidated. Not all lying (which is by definition – deception) is unrighteous. Now some here have attempted to equivocate by saying that not all deception is lying. That does not relieve the difficulty for that same scenario also plays right into my hand. Once it is conceded that not all deception is immoral, or that not all deception is lying, I have won a major point. All I have to say at that point then is the Rahab’s deception was the moral kind as was the midwives. All that has been done is a sleight of hand switcheroo in which the terms immoral and lying are made equal and the term deception is rendered equivocal. It is a semantical distinction that makes no real difference in this discussion…. A rose by another name……. as I will go on to further prove.
However, though, along these lines, I was invited to look at a dictionary. Okay, I accept that invitation.
Here is the dictionary definition of “lie”:
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
Or here is one which is exactly what I have been saying all along:
To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; to say or do that which is intended to deceive another, when he a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation.
(Webster's Revised
Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)
Here are the synonyms:
be untruthful, beguile, break promise, bull, con, concoct, deceive, delude, dissemble, dissimulate, distort, dupe, equivocate, exaggerate, fabricate, fake, falsify, fib, forswear, frame, fudge, invent, jazz, jive, make believe, malign, misguide, misinform, misinstruct, mislead, misrepresent, misspeak, misstate, overdraw, palter, perjure, pervert, phony up, plant, prevaricate, promote, put on, queer, snow, soft-soap, string along, victimize
(Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
Notice that “deceive” is synonymous with “lie,” thus the hair-splitting that has been attempted just doesn’t fly. Generally speaking, lying is deceiving, deceiving is lying. Thus, it ispatently obviously there is lying that is not sinful, it is at least morally benign, and I would argue at times, morally righteous.
Also note that by definition lying is not restricted to just uttering an outright falsehood by any action which is intended to mislead another. Thus a true statement can still be a lie, despite the gerrymandering here to say otherwise.
In the Biblical text, it is defined similarly…
Shaqar (Hebrew) – to do or deal falsely, be false, trick, cheat
Sheqer (Hebrew) - lie, deception, disappointment, falsehood
1a) deception (what deceives or disappoints or betrays one)
1b) deceit, fraud, wrong
1b1) fraudulently, wrongfully (as adverb)
1c) falsehood (injurious in testimony)
1c1) testify falsehood, false oath, swear falsely
1d) falsity (of false or self-deceived prophets)
1e) lie, falsehood (in general)
1e1) false tongue
1f) in vain
Kazab (Hebrew) - a lie, untruth, falsehood,
deceptive thing
1) to lie, tell a lie, be a liar, be found a liar, be in vain, fail
1a) (Qal) liar (participle)
1b) (Niphal) to be proven to be lying
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to lie, tell a lie, tell a lie with, deceive
1c2) to disappoint, fail
1d) (Hiphil) to make a liar, prove to be a liar
Pseudos (Greek) -
1) a lie
2) conscious and intentional falsehood
3) in a broad sense, whatever is not what it seems to be
4) 3a) of perverse, impious, deceitful precepts
Psuedomai (Greek) -
1) to lie, to speak deliberate falsehoods
2) to deceive one by a lie, to lie to
Again, the words “lie” and “deceive” are synonymous in many cases (there may be some subtleties that are not germane to this discussion).
The equivocating of any differences between lying and deception though is crushed by the Biblical text in any event. They are both stated as being sinful and to be avoided (if one is taking the position advocated by the opening post) .
Leviticus 19:11, “Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another.”
The fact is that the Biblical sin of lying is tied into the Biblical ideas of justice and equity which are the cornerstone of truth. Certain lying is wrong because it violates those principles. There are certain times when telling the “truth” would be wrong if it violated those underlying principles which the NT summarizes even further as love (Romans 13:10). The Biblical concept of truth is not merely the sterile reciting of correct data, it is the administration of justice, mercy, equity, and love. For nonexhaustive examples:
Deut. 32:4: He is the Rock. His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice.
(and note that the above verse neatly explains how it is perfectly within God’s character, who does not lie, to use lies in the administration of His justice… God does not immorally lie, but He has instructed, and commended, and used moral lies)
Ps 106:3 – Blessed are they who maintain justice, who constantly do what is right.
Is 1:15-17 – When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.
Hab. 1:3-4 – Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds. Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.[/B]
Zech 7:9 – This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.’
Matthew 23:23 – But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.
Now onto to some specific comments made here:
By Jaltus:
I have explained that above. God does not immorally deceive (i.e. lie). You are assuming that is the only meaning that can be poured into that word. My definition of the Biblical sin of lying certainly DOES take that into account.
I had also made a point about Romans 13 as follows:
To which Jaltus replied:
Jaltus did not interact with my point at all, which was, that opponents of my position keep pointing to passages which condemn lying without mentioning any exceptions or narrowing of definition. So, I point to two passages which mention that we should obey our rulers without mentioning any exceptions. Yes, Acts 5:29, then makes explicit an exception, but Paul nor Solomon never did in their direct addresses on this subject. I make the point that within the contextual framework of the Bible, they did not need to, because it would be obvious to the audience that greater moral imperatives would trump this one moral imperative. The fact that Acts 5:29 grants an “exception” shows that obedience to our rulers is in fact a standard that must be weighed relative to our circumstances.
This is a Biblical paradigm that can be then applied to other moral dilemmas in typical “remez” (Jewish interpretative analogy) fashion.
Now to Hank I had made the point:
To which Hank replied:
Now first, I want to point out that Hank’s original accusation towards me is that what I was advocating was the definition of relativism. I disproved that and showed that Hank did not really understand what relativism was, at least by standard definition today. I thought he would then concede that error, but he did not. Instead he sets a straw man ablaze. In fact, Hank is gored on his own argument, for if one can propose something that is more immoral, that means there is an outside absolute standard for morality by which we are measuring the morality of the choices within the situation with which we are faced. However, though, the premise of his entire argument is flawed in the real world outside of hypotheticals. The “control” scenario or the “worse” option is not something that we choose, rather it is inherent to the moral dilemma with which we are faced. The only thing we are morally constrained to choose is the something “better” as measured in light of the something “worse” that is forced upon us. For example, the external circumstance that the midwives were faced with was the immoral command to murder the Hebrew baby boys and the implicit threat to their own lives. They chose the greater good of using moral deception to save lives.
Hank then asked:
That is a statement that means very little without further clarification. Let’s say I want a new pair of shoes which (despite the opinion of some men) is a very good goal. I go into the store and steal them. I achieve a good goal, but the means that I use is not justified by that, for the means, as judged by the external standards of morality that the Bible puts upon us in light of the specific moral scenario, was immoral. I can only determine that this action was immoral if I have an absolute outside standard which must be then applied to each moral situation.
The ends justifies the means in EVERY situation. Say, I was cold and needed a fire. I could light up a stack of money (for I am so filthy rich that money means nothing to me) or I could light some firewood. It would be immoral for me to light up the money when it could be used for much more righteous purposes. If you need to go to the store, you could drive your car, or you could frivolously rent a stretch limousine. The intended goal would justify or illegitimize the means you use to reach it, that is true for every situation.
Jaltus also commented:
I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but I do disagree with the route you took to get there. Are you saying that morality depends upon the expectations of the people involved?? Your reasoning would make lying by a known liar acceptable since everyone expects them to lie. I agree that the Biblical sin of lying does not include those above items. You are trying to seek some solace by calling those actions “deceptions” rather than lies, but that is simply semantics. They are untruths, but they are morally benign.
That is an irrelevant example. Her intent was to spill the beans, but the Nazi’s misunderstood. Jesus made it clear that we are often judged by intents of the heart rather than actual outcomes, so her intent to reveal the location of the Jews was immoral (without getting into the moral accountability of children).
This brings us back to Bill Clinton (and Bill B. if you really don’t know what I am talking about, PM me and I will explain to you what happened). According to you, what he did (“I did not have intercourse with that woman”) was not a lie or wrong. Are you willing to be that consistent?
Then I guess we were all hard on Slick Willy for no reason at all. And who is making up their own definitions?? See above lexigraphical information to show that it is not me. Something does not have to false on its face to be lie or a deception. Say you have a standing rule that your teenage son cannot attend parties. He tells you that he is just going over to his friends house to hang out with some friends. He does not tell you those friends are throwing a party. He has lied to you (deceived you) with a true statement. The Bible clearly recognizes sins of omission (James 4:17) as well as commission. By your reasoning, technically, Annais and Saphira did not lie. They did sell their land for that amount, they just didn’t say that they sold it for that amount + (x).
Orwell would be proud. That makes no sense whatsoever. So it is okay for me to deceive people as long as I devise a way to use truthful (but incomplete – is that then really truthful??) statements to do it. I would never go into business with someone with that philosophy.
Now Bill had said that I merely hand-waved his Scriptures away. Hardly. It is he who has not dealt with mine. The reason that I have not answered his point about whether or not Rahab possessed eternal life is because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is that she is praised for faith because of her actions with the spies (which included her lie), and is never chastised for her lie. What is relevant is that both before and after the lie, the midwives are praised for their fear (which requires faith and trust) of God with no chastisement for their lie. This is just like the Romans 13 situation. Paul makes no exception to his rule, but in Acts we see there is an exception. It is the same situation here, we have Biblical examples of righteous lies. The prima facie case is mine.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Liar.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Your weakness is my sweetness.... or something like that.
Ahh, Dee Dee, your fallacies are all over the place.
First off, YOU defined Lying as deception. There is a world of different between telling a falsehood and deceiving, for one can deceive with the truth as well. My point, and your definitions back me up quite well, is that the lying condemned in the Bible is telling falsehoods in order to deceive. Telling truth in order to deceive is nowhere condemned.
Let me quote a definition back at you:
My objection is and always has been that one cannot tell an untruth and still be right in God's eyes. This is the point you keep missing, or else you try to make lying = deception when they have different semantic domains.
By the way, the Greek YEUDA (pseuda) means FALSE, it always refers to telling an untruth.
The part that is the problem between us is you keep saying "moral deception," can an untrue statement ever be moral? I would say no, and I would also say that Jesus entire being screams no, as He was and is the TRUTH.
How is this, AN UNTRUTH CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED OR CONSIDERED PRAISEWORTHY BY GOD.
That is an absolute statement I will stand by as being biblically valid and validated.
First off, YOU defined Lying as deception. There is a world of different between telling a falsehood and deceiving, for one can deceive with the truth as well. My point, and your definitions back me up quite well, is that the lying condemned in the Bible is telling falsehoods in order to deceive. Telling truth in order to deceive is nowhere condemned.
Let me quote a definition back at you:
Notice it is a FALSEHOOD that must be spoken, whereas deception DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FALSE according to the definitions you laid out.
My objection is and always has been that one cannot tell an untruth and still be right in God's eyes. This is the point you keep missing, or else you try to make lying = deception when they have different semantic domains.
By the way, the Greek YEUDA (pseuda) means FALSE, it always refers to telling an untruth.
The part that is the problem between us is you keep saying "moral deception," can an untrue statement ever be moral? I would say no, and I would also say that Jesus entire being screams no, as He was and is the TRUTH.
How is this, AN UNTRUTH CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED OR CONSIDERED PRAISEWORTHY BY GOD.
That is an absolute statement I will stand by as being biblically valid and validated.
bill betzler
New member
Would Mrs Prima Facie mind if I commented on her post?
You only showed that I did not define relativism like your limited definition of relativism you would like to use. I’m not sure who defines the standard definition but I am arguing that your definition allows for no absolute immorality.
I don’t know how I am gored by my own argument since I believe there is an outside absolute standard for morality and have never argued against that. You are the one that’s arguing that lying is sometimes immoral and sometime moral depending on when and how it is used.
There is no moral dilemma when you believe in absolute morality. You have a standard to live too. If something is immoral, then it is immoral all the time, not just compared to something else.
Sorry Dee Dee, this is again a good working definition of relative morality whether you want to accept it or not. Nothing is absolute, it’s just measured against something worse as you stated.
I understand what you are arguing and what you have argued from the very beginning. That almost any immoral act is justified to save a life. I am arguing that God has a plan for our lives and for the world in general. When we act immorally for any reason we are basically saying that we do not believe God can enact his plan unless we act immorally to “help” him out. I believe that to be false.
Almost everyone understands what this means and it’s very simple. Are immoral acts justified if the accomplishment is something you think is better than the immoral act.
And what if you steal a pair of shoes because you don’t have any and need some. Does the end then justify the means.
I’m assuming that you mean you take every action and judge it against what will be the immediate results. Then if the immediate results somehow outweighs (and how do you determine this?) the immoral act the it is moral. Did I read you wrong?
How about sacrificing 10 innocent lives because it would probably save 20 innocent lives? How would you weigh that?
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Jaltus:
( ß- does that remind you of anyone)
Really?? Where are all my royalty checks since I presented several dictionaries that agreed with me. I didn’t ask you to take just my word and basic common sense for it.
That makes no sense Jaltus. That is like saying there is a world of difference between hand-sewing with a needle and stitching because one can stitch with a sewing machine as well. The end result is the same and that is the point. You point of view is saying that it is okay to knowingly deceive someone as long as you are sneaky enough to devise a way to manipulate a true statement to do so.
You have doggedly avoided the six million dollar question: Was Bill Clinton wrong or sinning when he said, “I did not have intercourse with that woman.”?? How consistent are you going to be??
Actually my definitions prove you incorrect, as anyone going back and reading them can readily see. And you are arguing in a circle, I gave you two examples of telling falsehoods in order to deceive that are not condemned, and in fact are praised (Rahab and the midwives). You are assuming your point to prove your point. And you are wrong that telling truth in order to deceive is nowhere condemned because I cited:
Leviticus 19:11, “Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another.”
Really?? Let me quote part two of that same definition back at you:
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
See the Hebrew midwives and Rahab. Yet you want us to believe that deception is peachy with God as long as we manipulate a true statement to attain our deception. Again, I would not want anyone with that point of view as a business partner.
“Hey Jaltus, before I sign off on this contract, I see that the business has some outstanding debts. Have those been paid?”
“Dee Dee, I mailed out the checks to them this morning.” All the while knowing that the checks would bounce. Well you did tell a falsehood now did you?? You did mail the checks, it was just that pesky little bit of information that you withheld from me that the mailed checks were worthless. But hey, according to you, this would not be immoral or a lie.
So you say, but have yet to prove, or even interact meaningfully with my main thrusts.
( ß- does that remind you of anyone)Really?? Where are all my royalty checks since I presented several dictionaries that agreed with me. I didn’t ask you to take just my word and basic common sense for it.
That makes no sense Jaltus. That is like saying there is a world of difference between hand-sewing with a needle and stitching because one can stitch with a sewing machine as well. The end result is the same and that is the point. You point of view is saying that it is okay to knowingly deceive someone as long as you are sneaky enough to devise a way to manipulate a true statement to do so.
You have doggedly avoided the six million dollar question: Was Bill Clinton wrong or sinning when he said, “I did not have intercourse with that woman.”?? How consistent are you going to be??
Actually my definitions prove you incorrect, as anyone going back and reading them can readily see. And you are arguing in a circle, I gave you two examples of telling falsehoods in order to deceive that are not condemned, and in fact are praised (Rahab and the midwives). You are assuming your point to prove your point. And you are wrong that telling truth in order to deceive is nowhere condemned because I cited:
Leviticus 19:11, “Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another.”
Really?? Let me quote part two of that same definition back at you:
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
See the Hebrew midwives and Rahab. Yet you want us to believe that deception is peachy with God as long as we manipulate a true statement to attain our deception. Again, I would not want anyone with that point of view as a business partner.
“Hey Jaltus, before I sign off on this contract, I see that the business has some outstanding debts. Have those been paid?”
“Dee Dee, I mailed out the checks to them this morning.” All the while knowing that the checks would bounce. Well you did tell a falsehood now did you?? You did mail the checks, it was just that pesky little bit of information that you withheld from me that the mailed checks were worthless. But hey, according to you, this would not be immoral or a lie.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Hank:
My alleged limited definition is the philosophical definition in use today. I am using the generally accepted definition of relativism within the field of moral philosophy and the one used by its adherents. You made the claim that what I was saying was the very definition of relativism…. it turns out that you meant it was your very own definition of moral relativism which is illegitimate then to use polemically against me. It is telling to me that you cannot concede this point. There are many points of view that I disagree with, but I make sure when representing them, criticizing them, I define and represent them fairly. Your very wide tar brush of painting in with the moral relativists is unfair, and not accurate. You should retract that original comment. You may fairly try to argue and prove that the end result is the same, but my starting presuppositions are vastly different.
You appear to have missed the point then if you don’t see how you have defeated your own argument. If you agree that we agree that there is one absolute standard for morality than you have conceded that I am not a moral relativists and that my view does not entail the lack of absolutes. Our argument, fairly defined, is whether all moral imperatives apply equally in all situations. I gave one such example of the command to submit to the government that is given by Paul and Solomon without qualification, but we learn in Acts, the force of that moral imperative varies depending upon the circumstances. I am saying the same thing with a different moral imperative… if you are not going to accuse the Bible of relativism or of having a lack of moral absolutes with regards to that issue, you cannot fairly do that to me.
You cannot justify that statement with the moral imperative to submit to the government. It is not always immoral to disobey the government.
Again, you have missed the point. The standard by which we discern better and worse is absolute and would apply equally to all persons in the same situation.
Well that is not exactly what I have been saying at all, and I gave the two Biblical examples of persons commended for their faith/fear who used deception in the very scenarios that they are praised for. You may not like that, but there it is.
Some acts are moral or not moral in different situations. The lying of Rahab and the midwives was not a “justified” immoral act, it was a moral act in those circumstances. This has nothing to do about “what I believe” is better as what “you believe” is better may be different… it is about maturely handling moral dilemmas based upon an outside standard to determine moral behavior. It is generally wrong to shove another person. However, if I shove you to the ground, and even injure you, to save you from an incoming car, my battery of you was not a “justified” immoral act, it was a moral act.
That is very simplistic. Shoes are not life and death. I would have other ways of obtaining the needed shoes other than steal them though I may be too immorally lazy to work or too immorally proud to ask for charity.
Not just the immediate results.. the whole scenario to the best it can be known by us. How do you determine what is the best way to summon your neighbor out of his house…. Well if you just need to borrow a cup of sugar a phone call or knock is appropriate. If his house is on fire, driving your car through his front door might be appropriate, though generally speaking, destroying your neighbor’s property is immoral.
Again a very simplistic statement, and one designed to garner an emotional response. Let me add some details and give a response. I am the ruler of a country. There is some emergency situation and I must decide between one of two situations. One will with all certainty that is possible to be known will result in the death of 20 people, one will result in the death of 10. All other factors are equal. I will take the route that causes less people to die.
Can you concoct a moral dilemna that I will struggle with?? I am sure you can but that does not disprove my points, only that I may have some moral maturing to do, and some more backbone to grow. But I doubt that you are comfortable with your position which would require you to tell the Nazi’s about the Jews in your basement, or the home invader where your wife is hiding so that he can rape and kill her.
My alleged limited definition is the philosophical definition in use today. I am using the generally accepted definition of relativism within the field of moral philosophy and the one used by its adherents. You made the claim that what I was saying was the very definition of relativism…. it turns out that you meant it was your very own definition of moral relativism which is illegitimate then to use polemically against me. It is telling to me that you cannot concede this point. There are many points of view that I disagree with, but I make sure when representing them, criticizing them, I define and represent them fairly. Your very wide tar brush of painting in with the moral relativists is unfair, and not accurate. You should retract that original comment. You may fairly try to argue and prove that the end result is the same, but my starting presuppositions are vastly different.
You appear to have missed the point then if you don’t see how you have defeated your own argument. If you agree that we agree that there is one absolute standard for morality than you have conceded that I am not a moral relativists and that my view does not entail the lack of absolutes. Our argument, fairly defined, is whether all moral imperatives apply equally in all situations. I gave one such example of the command to submit to the government that is given by Paul and Solomon without qualification, but we learn in Acts, the force of that moral imperative varies depending upon the circumstances. I am saying the same thing with a different moral imperative… if you are not going to accuse the Bible of relativism or of having a lack of moral absolutes with regards to that issue, you cannot fairly do that to me.
You cannot justify that statement with the moral imperative to submit to the government. It is not always immoral to disobey the government.
Again, you have missed the point. The standard by which we discern better and worse is absolute and would apply equally to all persons in the same situation.
Well that is not exactly what I have been saying at all, and I gave the two Biblical examples of persons commended for their faith/fear who used deception in the very scenarios that they are praised for. You may not like that, but there it is.
Some acts are moral or not moral in different situations. The lying of Rahab and the midwives was not a “justified” immoral act, it was a moral act in those circumstances. This has nothing to do about “what I believe” is better as what “you believe” is better may be different… it is about maturely handling moral dilemmas based upon an outside standard to determine moral behavior. It is generally wrong to shove another person. However, if I shove you to the ground, and even injure you, to save you from an incoming car, my battery of you was not a “justified” immoral act, it was a moral act.
That is very simplistic. Shoes are not life and death. I would have other ways of obtaining the needed shoes other than steal them though I may be too immorally lazy to work or too immorally proud to ask for charity.
Not just the immediate results.. the whole scenario to the best it can be known by us. How do you determine what is the best way to summon your neighbor out of his house…. Well if you just need to borrow a cup of sugar a phone call or knock is appropriate. If his house is on fire, driving your car through his front door might be appropriate, though generally speaking, destroying your neighbor’s property is immoral.
Again a very simplistic statement, and one designed to garner an emotional response. Let me add some details and give a response. I am the ruler of a country. There is some emergency situation and I must decide between one of two situations. One will with all certainty that is possible to be known will result in the death of 20 people, one will result in the death of 10. All other factors are equal. I will take the route that causes less people to die.
Can you concoct a moral dilemna that I will struggle with?? I am sure you can but that does not disprove my points, only that I may have some moral maturing to do, and some more backbone to grow. But I doubt that you are comfortable with your position which would require you to tell the Nazi’s about the Jews in your basement, or the home invader where your wife is hiding so that he can rape and kill her.
Dee Dee,
I have stated TIME AND AGAIN without refutation that neither the midwives nor Rahab were praised for their lies, only for their FAITH. You have yet to prove your erronious assumption. I have also argued that the midwives did in fact not lie, something nobody has seen fit to respond to other than to agree or nuance.
You also cannot take 1 definition without considering the other. My point is that you are taking deception and making it equal to lying, which the dictionaries do not do. There is a difference between a synonym (similar meaning) and having the exact same meaning. Deception means trying to mislead. Lying means misleading through untruth. World of difference.
As for Clinton, he lied because what he did can be categorized as a form of intercourse. He told an untruth.
As for Lev 19:11, it says do not deceive one another, and thus would be limited to the covenant community, as far as I can tell. I agree that you treat the covenant community different than the non-covenant community.
What this amounts to is that I am willing and able to take both definitions of lying and be happy with either, whereas you MUST be stuck with only the second one.
Again, you have NEVER dealt with my argument from God's Own Character, something posted on the original thread that none of you advocates for lying have ever dealt with, and since reposted on this thread (I think).
I have stated TIME AND AGAIN without refutation that neither the midwives nor Rahab were praised for their lies, only for their FAITH. You have yet to prove your erronious assumption. I have also argued that the midwives did in fact not lie, something nobody has seen fit to respond to other than to agree or nuance.
You also cannot take 1 definition without considering the other. My point is that you are taking deception and making it equal to lying, which the dictionaries do not do. There is a difference between a synonym (similar meaning) and having the exact same meaning. Deception means trying to mislead. Lying means misleading through untruth. World of difference.
As for Clinton, he lied because what he did can be categorized as a form of intercourse. He told an untruth.
As for Lev 19:11, it says do not deceive one another, and thus would be limited to the covenant community, as far as I can tell. I agree that you treat the covenant community different than the non-covenant community.
What this amounts to is that I am willing and able to take both definitions of lying and be happy with either, whereas you MUST be stuck with only the second one.
Again, you have NEVER dealt with my argument from God's Own Character, something posted on the original thread that none of you advocates for lying have ever dealt with, and since reposted on this thread (I think).
Well, since I would only advocate going into business with a believer, I would not be able to deceive them. You, on the other hand, seem to think that lying can be rightouess in the first place, leaving you no room to talk.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Jaltus.. do you really want a scorecard of allegedly skipped points?? I don't think you do. I refrained from pointing out multiple points you skipped instead just choosing to reuse them again if necessary to the argument, or dropping them if not. I at this point have assumed that you and I have other concerns in life in addition to answering this thread, so I am not insisting on a point by point rebuttal to every single thing. However, since you intent upon a response to that tangential comment, I will make one.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
BTW, though there was a honking glaring inconsistency in your last post that made me smile (and you can imagine my evil preterist hose-beast smile I am sure). Maybe you want to go back and rethink a few things that you said..... I think Hank will see it and go into orbit.
PS... on another note.. can you email me again.. an apologetics friend needs help with a Greek studies question and I was hoping that you could help (DeeDWarren@aol.com)
PS... on another note.. can you email me again.. an apologetics friend needs help with a Greek studies question and I was hoping that you could help (DeeDWarren@aol.com)
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
You're not?? Darn.. you just ruined an entertaining mental picture. YX has heard me froth and spit before, so I was thinking that you and I may be kindred souls.. but alas.......
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Got it, and sent one back at you. And yx will tell you that I am very, very finicky about getting responses to emails
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Eeek, I have got to clean this place, large as it is.
Why does that either worry me, or strike me as very funny????
Why does that either worry me, or strike me as very funny????