D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Hmmm, will I start craving Baklava??? Will I think naked statues are cool??? Will I have a compulsion to sit through ten showing of My Big Fat Greek Wedding???
Oh and in honor of this thread, I am going to rent Liar, Liar and Big Fat Liar this weekend. It will be a whole lying theme....... but then again, I am an idiot.
Oh and in honor of this thread, I am going to rent Liar, Liar and Big Fat Liar this weekend. It will be a whole lying theme....... but then again, I am an idiot.
Jaltus states...
How sad that you reject the MAIN part of the story simply to hold on to your weak bankrupt view that "lying is never righteous".
Of course I guess that makes sense coming from someone who actually said the following when I asked on another thread.... "Are you asserting that God would have preferred that the Hebrew midwives NOT lied to the Egyptian King?" And Jaltus responded....
That is just plain sick! Not to mention blatantly boneheaded. Any normal person with any sense at all would read the following passage and see the heroic deed the midwives did and see the pleasure that God found in them for protecting the baby Hebrew boys....
You have got to be kidding me!
How sad that you reject the MAIN part of the story simply to hold on to your weak bankrupt view that "lying is never righteous".
Of course I guess that makes sense coming from someone who actually said the following when I asked on another thread.... "Are you asserting that God would have preferred that the Hebrew midwives NOT lied to the Egyptian King?" And Jaltus responded....
Jaltus actually thinks that God would have preferred the hebrew midwives NOT have lied to save the Hebrew baby boys!
That is just plain sick! Not to mention blatantly boneheaded. Any normal person with any sense at all would read the following passage and see the heroic deed the midwives did and see the pleasure that God found in them for protecting the baby Hebrew boys....
The above story about God being happy with the Hebrew midwives righteous lie is so incredibly obvious its embarrassing, maybe even blasphemous to assert otherwise.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Now how dare you actually make sense Knight??? 
See... I am not crazy. Someone actually agrees with me!!!
See... I am not crazy. Someone actually agrees with me!!!
Well on the other thread Jaltus's best argument was...Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Now how dare you actually make sense Knight???
Jesus never inflated an inter tube either but that is hardly wrong!
This whole argument is so ridiculous!
Any person who thinks it would be wrong to directly lie to the Nazi's to save a Jewish family hiding in their crawl space is brainless and helps to cement to unbelievers that Christians are irrational.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Err, Knight, you're holding back, and that just isn't healthy. Say how you really feel??
I hope to post some more over the weekend......
I hope to post some more over the weekend......
Anyone who thinks God endorses sin needs to read the Bible.
Point of fact, my basis about Jesus was that HE WAS AND IS THE TRUTH!
Your little inner tube argument is frankly stupid. Inner tubes were not around when Jesus was, but lying was most definitely around.
Knight, either argue intelligently or don't argue at all.
I will also point out YET AGAIN that the midwives did not necessarily state an untruth. It could very well be that sometimes the Hebrews gave birth early. NOTHING IN THE STORY SAYS IT WAS A LIE.
As for Rahab, it says her FAITH saved her, not her lies.
Come on, people, get serious here and deal with some of my theological arguments. So far you are trying to get me to believe that God endorses evil. Why didn't Daniel and the 3 guys lie about praying or bowing down to the idol? Wouldn't that be a righteous lie to save themselves?
NO! It would show a LACK OF FAITH!
Point of fact, my basis about Jesus was that HE WAS AND IS THE TRUTH!
Your little inner tube argument is frankly stupid. Inner tubes were not around when Jesus was, but lying was most definitely around.
Knight, either argue intelligently or don't argue at all.
I will also point out YET AGAIN that the midwives did not necessarily state an untruth. It could very well be that sometimes the Hebrews gave birth early. NOTHING IN THE STORY SAYS IT WAS A LIE.
As for Rahab, it says her FAITH saved her, not her lies.
Come on, people, get serious here and deal with some of my theological arguments. So far you are trying to get me to believe that God endorses evil. Why didn't Daniel and the 3 guys lie about praying or bowing down to the idol? Wouldn't that be a righteous lie to save themselves?
NO! It would show a LACK OF FAITH!
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Knight, would you like the honors???
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
I said I would Jaltus... are you that needy for another spanking??
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
If you are.. and this is not enough for you... I would be glad to spank you some more on eschatology in the brand spanking new (pun intened) forum area that Knight has opened.
Good point, God does not endorse sin.
Sadly this is a straw man argument as we are not discussing whether or not God endorses sin.
You continue...
Stop the presses!!!!
You continue...
Ya know Jaltus you really do have a thick skull.
You continue...
Thank you sir may I have another?
You continue...
Ugh.... how far will you go to deny plain truth!!!
The midwives told the king a DIRECT lie to save the Hebrew baby boys...
I suppose now Jaltus will argue that Hebrew women really DO give birth faster than Egyptian woman?
You continue...
Huh???
Who asking you to believe that God endorses evil?
The point is.... lying (not telling the truth) is NOT NECESSARILY evil NOR even wrong! Lying is morally neutral. It is the motivation for not telling the truth that can be either wrong or right.
Lying to the wicked to protect some who are innocent when there is no other option is NOT EVIL! In fact, its good! To deny that fact is down right wicked!
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Great summary statement. This is exactly what I was communicating in my post dealing with the foundation of all of the moral imperatives... justice, mercy, and love.
But here is the kicker Knight.... Jaltus is arguing that God does not endorse lying, but does endores deception. How in the world is that any better??? That is sheer nonsense. I doubt that a person who has been manipulatively deceived by a truth feels any better about it, or any more justly treated than one who has been willingly deceived by a falsehood.
LOL...
Jaltus wants to interject some amount of obfuscation as to be able to hide in his bankrupt and unbiblical position.
You continue...
Great point !
Y
Yxboom
Guest
You guys just keep trying to lie your way out of this.....Well, frankly I don't believe the lot of ya.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
We could just be using the truth to deceive you, and that would be okay.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Jaltus:
Agreed so why did you do exactly that?? My original post contained both definitions (i.e. the word means either just as legitimately) and you culled it down to the one that suited you. I merely brought up the part you skipped. Here again is the entire definition:
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)
And again, 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.)
Thus to lie encompases both deception by falsehood and deception by truth. It is the intention to deceive that makes it a lie. Can you really say with a straight face that it is always morally permissible to deceive someone as long as you manipulate a true statement to do so?? Come on now!!!
On what planet?? You cannot take the second one of either selection for they define using a truth to deceive as lying.
That is not accurate for I have refuted that statement, and since this comment Knight has refuted it once again. But hey that old nag is still kicking, so let’s drag out the bats….
First your claim that the midwives did not lie…..
Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?” And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.” Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.
First taking your erroneous limitation on the definition of lying (which I have already disproven above), they are still lying. The text tells us WHY the midwives did not follow the orders…. Because they feared God. Yet when the king asked them WHY they did not kill the babies, they said because the Hebrew woman were fast droppers. That is not why they did not do it, the text says that. So they told a FALSEHOOD.
Man, Slick Willie would be so proud. The king commanded ALL the Hebrew male babies to be killed and wanted to know why this was not done. The context is ALL, not some, not sometimes, not could be. The midwives answered that they could not do it because the woman delivered early…. Not some of the woman, but in context ALL the women. He is asking why ALL of the male children were spared alive, and their answer is simply not true.
Oh no, someone will have to go and retrieve Hank from orbit. Are you saying Jaltus that the imperative not to deceive is relative to the people involved??? Are you then saying that believers cannot deceive each other with truth, but that we are allowed to deceive nonbelievers with truth?? Are you feeling okay?? Are you that desparate to win this argument?? That sounds like a great witness to an unbelieving world. What happened to abstaining from every appearance of evil?? What happened to letting your light so shine before men?? This cannot possibly seem like a good answer to you Jaltus.
But is that even what the verse says?? Nope. Let’s look at some different translations shall we??
Lev 19:11
(ASV) Ye shall not steal; neither shall ye deal falsely, nor lie one to another.
(CEV) Do not steal or tell lies or cheat others.
(GNB) "Do not steal or cheat or lie.
(GW) "Never steal, lie, or deceive your neighbor.
(ISV)
(KJV) Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.
(KJV+) Ye shall not3808 steal,1589 neither3808 deal falsely,3584 neither3808 lie8266 one376 to another.5997
(LITV) You shall not steal nor lie, nor deceive to one another.
(MKJV) You shall not steal, nor lie, nor be deceitful to one another.
It is obvious that ALL three imperatives there (lying, deceiving, and stealing) are ALL modified by the phrase “one another.” So Jaltus, can we steal from unbelievers too??
This is all I have time for tonight.. more later.
Agreed so why did you do exactly that?? My original post contained both definitions (i.e. the word means either just as legitimately) and you culled it down to the one that suited you. I merely brought up the part you skipped. Here again is the entire definition:
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)
And again, 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.)
Thus to lie encompases both deception by falsehood and deception by truth. It is the intention to deceive that makes it a lie. Can you really say with a straight face that it is always morally permissible to deceive someone as long as you manipulate a true statement to do so?? Come on now!!!
On what planet?? You cannot take the second one of either selection for they define using a truth to deceive as lying.
That is not accurate for I have refuted that statement, and since this comment Knight has refuted it once again. But hey that old nag is still kicking, so let’s drag out the bats….
First your claim that the midwives did not lie…..
Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?” And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.” Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.
First taking your erroneous limitation on the definition of lying (which I have already disproven above), they are still lying. The text tells us WHY the midwives did not follow the orders…. Because they feared God. Yet when the king asked them WHY they did not kill the babies, they said because the Hebrew woman were fast droppers. That is not why they did not do it, the text says that. So they told a FALSEHOOD.
Man, Slick Willie would be so proud. The king commanded ALL the Hebrew male babies to be killed and wanted to know why this was not done. The context is ALL, not some, not sometimes, not could be. The midwives answered that they could not do it because the woman delivered early…. Not some of the woman, but in context ALL the women. He is asking why ALL of the male children were spared alive, and their answer is simply not true.
His lawyers who are masters of splitting hairs between a false statement and technically true one disagree with you Jaltus. If for arguments sake the word does technically refer only to the official sex act, would he have been morally wrong in making that statement??
Oh no, someone will have to go and retrieve Hank from orbit. Are you saying Jaltus that the imperative not to deceive is relative to the people involved??? Are you then saying that believers cannot deceive each other with truth, but that we are allowed to deceive nonbelievers with truth?? Are you feeling okay?? Are you that desparate to win this argument?? That sounds like a great witness to an unbelieving world. What happened to abstaining from every appearance of evil?? What happened to letting your light so shine before men?? This cannot possibly seem like a good answer to you Jaltus.
But is that even what the verse says?? Nope. Let’s look at some different translations shall we??
Lev 19:11
(ASV) Ye shall not steal; neither shall ye deal falsely, nor lie one to another.
(CEV) Do not steal or tell lies or cheat others.
(GNB) "Do not steal or cheat or lie.
(GW) "Never steal, lie, or deceive your neighbor.
(ISV)
(KJV) Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.
(KJV+) Ye shall not3808 steal,1589 neither3808 deal falsely,3584 neither3808 lie8266 one376 to another.5997
(LITV) You shall not steal nor lie, nor deceive to one another.
(MKJV) You shall not steal, nor lie, nor be deceitful to one another.
It is obvious that ALL three imperatives there (lying, deceiving, and stealing) are ALL modified by the phrase “one another.” So Jaltus, can we steal from unbelievers too??
This is all I have time for tonight.. more later.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Back for more….
Actually both Knight and I have. God own character is based upon justice and mercy and love. God own character would not have you tell the Nazis about the Jews in your basement.
That has to be the most nonsensical thing you have recently said in this talk Jaltus. Are you then saying that my scenario would be peachily moral between two nonbelievers or a believer who decided, for whatever reason, to go into business with a nonbeliever. You have grabbed Plantiga’s tar baby.
I brought it up to show that deceit was an implicit concept in lying, whether truth was used to deceive or a falsehood was used to deceive. Additionally since our main texts are in the OT, it was a side point, and the NT certainly is not going to outright contradict the OT on this issue. Additionally within the meaning of that Greek word, just like the English word is “in a broad sense, whatever is not what it seems to be.” Additionally, in your eschatological paradigm your take on 2 Thess 2:9 would defeat your argument as well as the “man of sin” allegedly will perform “real” signs and wonders, but they are false in validating
him.. they will deceive the people.
And being consistent with your prior argument:
Since this text also says “to one another,” it is okay to lie to unbelievers?
Oh, wow. I am sure glad you said that. Read the Bible. Hmm. Like where He rewards the midwives and praises Rahab. Thanks…. That clears things up a lot, unfortunately for your position.
Sorry, but I am on a low-straw diet. No one said any of her works saved her so of course her faith saved her, and she is specifically mentioned as being faithful in her actions with the spies which absolutely includes her lie. It is highly problematic for your that her lie is never condemned. Would you, in dealing with your children for an act that they did that contained a lot of good, but in the midst of which they immorally lied which was pivotal to achieving their goals, praise them in front of your other children without rebuking the immorality to give a balance??
James 2:25- Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
And how did she send them out another way??? By lying to save their hides.
Wow, then why wasn’t Rahab’s lack of faith in lying WHICH IS CENTRAL TO HER ROLE WITH THE SPIES, ever condemned. Instead she is mentioned in the proverbial “Hall of Faith.”
Actually both Knight and I have. God own character is based upon justice and mercy and love. God own character would not have you tell the Nazis about the Jews in your basement.
That has to be the most nonsensical thing you have recently said in this talk Jaltus. Are you then saying that my scenario would be peachily moral between two nonbelievers or a believer who decided, for whatever reason, to go into business with a nonbeliever. You have grabbed Plantiga’s tar baby.
I brought it up to show that deceit was an implicit concept in lying, whether truth was used to deceive or a falsehood was used to deceive. Additionally since our main texts are in the OT, it was a side point, and the NT certainly is not going to outright contradict the OT on this issue. Additionally within the meaning of that Greek word, just like the English word is “in a broad sense, whatever is not what it seems to be.” Additionally, in your eschatological paradigm your take on 2 Thess 2:9 would defeat your argument as well as the “man of sin” allegedly will perform “real” signs and wonders, but they are false in validating
him.. they will deceive the people.
And being consistent with your prior argument:
Since this text also says “to one another,” it is okay to lie to unbelievers?
Oh, wow. I am sure glad you said that. Read the Bible. Hmm. Like where He rewards the midwives and praises Rahab. Thanks…. That clears things up a lot, unfortunately for your position.
Sorry, but I am on a low-straw diet. No one said any of her works saved her so of course her faith saved her, and she is specifically mentioned as being faithful in her actions with the spies which absolutely includes her lie. It is highly problematic for your that her lie is never condemned. Would you, in dealing with your children for an act that they did that contained a lot of good, but in the midst of which they immorally lied which was pivotal to achieving their goals, praise them in front of your other children without rebuking the immorality to give a balance??
James 2:25- Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
And how did she send them out another way??? By lying to save their hides.
Wow, then why wasn’t Rahab’s lack of faith in lying WHICH IS CENTRAL TO HER ROLE WITH THE SPIES, ever condemned. Instead she is mentioned in the proverbial “Hall of Faith.”
Hi Dee Dee
Dee I did a search for relativism and could not find your definition of the term. In fact I could not find any direct definition of the term. If you want me to concede that your definition is the correct definition of relativism then okay. I would like to move on to what I think you realize I am debating instead of arguing about the correct definition. That is that your definition that moral actions are relative to the situation, and that the end justifies the means destroys the concept of absolute morality. Is that fair enough?
Dee just because you agree that there is one absolute standard for morality does not mean your are not a moral relativists. You and I disagree on what that absolute standard is even though we both believe there is one standard. One of us is wrong, maybe both.
I am not debating the Bible or what it says. I am debating absolute morality. If you want to believe that Jesus taught the same morality as the Old Testament then good luck. Personally I believe you are putting new wine into old wineskins.
I don’t understand what you are saying. The first sentence seems to say you believe it is immoral to disobey the government and the second seems to say it is okay sometimes.
Why do you think I am missing your point? I know exactly what you are saying and I’m saying I believe it is wrong.
It’s not that I don’t like it, I just don’t believe it.
I’m not at all uncomfortable with my position. I’m not saying I wouldn’t lie, I’m just saying I don’t believe it is moral when I lie regardless of the situation.
Dee this debate reminds me of the old joke I’m sure you’ve heard. The one about the man who offered a woman a million dollars to have sex with him. She said okay. Then he offered her 20 dollars and she was offended and said “what do you think I am?”. And he replied “We know what your are, we’re just debating the price”.
I believe there are absolute moral principles that apply in all cases. I don’t always react to situations as I believe I should because the price is too high. I admit I am a prostitute and ask for God’s forgiveness for being weak. I believe you are trying to argue that if the price is high enough, that it’s okay and you are not really a prostitute. I’m sure you know I’m using this as an example, not accusing you of being a prostitute.
The reason I believe this is because I have seen that every once in a while someone comes along that most people tend call a saint. People like Jesus, St. Frances, George Fox, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, etc. They take morality and say it is absolute. And not only do they say it is absolute, they live their life that way. In other words they never accept the money no matter how much is offered. I believe that the reason we see them as saints is because the holy sprit that lives inside us reveals it to us.
You keep bring up hiding Jews during WWII as proof that the end justifies the means. There was one European country, I think it was Holland but not sure, that said we will not hide Jews but we will stand side by side with them. By doing so they saved all the Jews instead of a few. Gandhi stated that God’s principles were stronger than that of the British might and stood by it. In the end the British saw that they could not defeat a moral law and walked away in humiliation at the power of God’s laws.
Dee how much could be accomplished is everyone stood up and said I will live morally no matter what the cost? Would Hitler have ever come to power? It has been shown one person standing up for moral principles without question can change the world. But we look at the immediate situation instead of the overall picture. Like looking at a beach under a microscope. It looks like a few grains of sand under the microscope, but when we back off and look at the larger plan, it’s a beautiful beach.
You think I don’t get the point. I get exactly the point you are making because I used to believe exactly as you do. I changed my beliefs because I believe the holy spirit has led me in that direction. I’m still learning and if I’m wrong I believe God will know that I was true to my beliefs and honestly sought, prayed and craved to understand his will. Jesus said to seek and you will find. I believe that is true.
Dee I did a search for relativism and could not find your definition of the term. In fact I could not find any direct definition of the term. If you want me to concede that your definition is the correct definition of relativism then okay. I would like to move on to what I think you realize I am debating instead of arguing about the correct definition. That is that your definition that moral actions are relative to the situation, and that the end justifies the means destroys the concept of absolute morality. Is that fair enough?
Dee just because you agree that there is one absolute standard for morality does not mean your are not a moral relativists. You and I disagree on what that absolute standard is even though we both believe there is one standard. One of us is wrong, maybe both.
I am not debating the Bible or what it says. I am debating absolute morality. If you want to believe that Jesus taught the same morality as the Old Testament then good luck. Personally I believe you are putting new wine into old wineskins.
I don’t understand what you are saying. The first sentence seems to say you believe it is immoral to disobey the government and the second seems to say it is okay sometimes.
Why do you think I am missing your point? I know exactly what you are saying and I’m saying I believe it is wrong.
It’s not that I don’t like it, I just don’t believe it.
I’m not at all uncomfortable with my position. I’m not saying I wouldn’t lie, I’m just saying I don’t believe it is moral when I lie regardless of the situation.
Dee this debate reminds me of the old joke I’m sure you’ve heard. The one about the man who offered a woman a million dollars to have sex with him. She said okay. Then he offered her 20 dollars and she was offended and said “what do you think I am?”. And he replied “We know what your are, we’re just debating the price”.
I believe there are absolute moral principles that apply in all cases. I don’t always react to situations as I believe I should because the price is too high. I admit I am a prostitute and ask for God’s forgiveness for being weak. I believe you are trying to argue that if the price is high enough, that it’s okay and you are not really a prostitute. I’m sure you know I’m using this as an example, not accusing you of being a prostitute.
The reason I believe this is because I have seen that every once in a while someone comes along that most people tend call a saint. People like Jesus, St. Frances, George Fox, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, etc. They take morality and say it is absolute. And not only do they say it is absolute, they live their life that way. In other words they never accept the money no matter how much is offered. I believe that the reason we see them as saints is because the holy sprit that lives inside us reveals it to us.
You keep bring up hiding Jews during WWII as proof that the end justifies the means. There was one European country, I think it was Holland but not sure, that said we will not hide Jews but we will stand side by side with them. By doing so they saved all the Jews instead of a few. Gandhi stated that God’s principles were stronger than that of the British might and stood by it. In the end the British saw that they could not defeat a moral law and walked away in humiliation at the power of God’s laws.
Dee how much could be accomplished is everyone stood up and said I will live morally no matter what the cost? Would Hitler have ever come to power? It has been shown one person standing up for moral principles without question can change the world. But we look at the immediate situation instead of the overall picture. Like looking at a beach under a microscope. It looks like a few grains of sand under the microscope, but when we back off and look at the larger plan, it’s a beautiful beach.
You think I don’t get the point. I get exactly the point you are making because I used to believe exactly as you do. I changed my beliefs because I believe the holy spirit has led me in that direction. I’m still learning and if I’m wrong I believe God will know that I was true to my beliefs and honestly sought, prayed and craved to understand his will. Jesus said to seek and you will find. I believe that is true.