ARCHIVE: Lying is never righteous!

[Nathon Detroit]

Wow....

Every now and then you get into one of these debates and before you know it the opposition has tossed in so much obfuscation its tough to tell where you really are!

Prostitutes and Mother Theresa? Earth to Hank????

Let's review....
I want to summarize what my view point is in EXTREMELY simple, short and plain terms.

- Lying is not telling the truth (either by direct means, deception or omission)
- Lying is generally wrong. We should tell each other the truth. We SHOULD!
- Yet lying in and of itself is morally neutral.
- Sometimes lying is more appropriate than telling the truth. I.e., "no grandma I love your molasses cookies".
- Other times... lying is righteous! i.e., “But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive..... 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.”

Hank says...

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.

That's a great anecdotal story but it doesn't do to much for all the examples that couldn't have been handled this way for a variety of reasons. You have to put yourself in the position of a single Christian German family trying to help and the Nazi's are banging on the door. The "Holland" story doesn't do much for them does it?

Hank continues...

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.

Two Points:

1. Gandhi rejected Jesus Christ and makes for strange example since Gandhi is in Hell.

2. You are arguing a platitude! Sure it would be great if everyone stood together and were able to thwart evil without telling a falsehood! But the truth is... that isn't always possible i.e., the Hebrew Midwives would have been put to death had they stood against the Egyptian King and therefore both them and the Hebrew baby boys would have been lost. Which is why God blessed them for their righteous lie!

The bottom line is...
If one can tell the truth he should! But if wicked plans can ONLY be thwarted by lies and deception the Bible is clear! Thwart the wicked!!!

Compare lying to taking someone's life.

Taking a life can either be wrong or right! It all depends on the circumstances and motivation. If you take someone's life for unjust means then that is murder and absolutely wrong! Murder is absolutely wrong and therefore never right. Yet if you take someone's life for a just cause then that is NOT absolutely wrong! In fact righteous!

So it isn't the taking of life that is a moral absolute, its the motivation or circumstance. MURDER = Absolutely wrong by defintion. Because "murder" is defined by it's evil intention.

Likewise lying for an unjust cause is absolutely wrong (like bearing false witness) yet lying for a just cause is NOT absolutely wrong and can possibly be righteous!

 

[bill betzler]

Knight,

If you hadn't lied to your grandma the first time, you wouldn't have to lie to her every year as she brought you new boxes of your "favorite" molasses cookies.

 

[Hank]

Every now and then you get into one of these debates and before you know it the opposition has tossed in so much obfuscation its tough to tell where you really are!

Prostitutes and Mother Theresa? Earth to Hank????

Leave it to Knight to start with the insults when you’re trying to just have a discussion. Dee seems a pretty sharp lady so I believe she will understand where I am even if you can't.

a great anecdotal story but it doesn't do to much for all the examples that couldn't have been handled this way for a variety of reasons. You have to put yourself in the position of a single Christian German family trying to help and the Nazi's are banging on the door. The "Holland" story doesn't do much for them does it?

And just why couldn’t some of the German people have stood together and stopped this madness at the very beginning. God will do amazing things for those who believe.

1. Gandhi rejected Jesus Christ and makes for strange example since Gandhi is in Hell.

You have no idea where Gandhi is. It’s just your belief that that’s where he is.

2. You are arguing a platitude! Sure it would be great if everyone stood together and were able to thwart evil without telling a falsehood! But the truth is... that isn't always possible i.e., the Hebrew Midwives would have been put to death had they stood against the Egyptian King and therefore both them and the Hebrew baby boys would have been lost. Which is why God blessed them for their righteous lie!

You limit the power of God by saying the only possible result is bad when someone stands on moral principles.

The bottom line is...
If one can tell the truth he should! But if wicked plans can ONLY be thwarted by lies and deception the Bible is clear! Thwart the wicked!!!

Compare lying to taking someone's life.

Taking a life can either be wrong or right! It all depends on the circumstances and motivation. If you take someone's life for unjust means then that is murder and absolutely wrong! Murder is absolutely wrong and therefore never right. Yet if you take someone's life for a just cause then that is NOT absolutely wrong! In fact righteous!

So it isn't the taking of life that is a moral absolute, its the motivation or circumstance. MURDER = Absolutely wrong by defintion. Because "murder" is defined by it's evil intention.

And just who decides when the cause is just enough to take someone’s life? Why the person taking the life of course. With that philosophy I can justify almost any killing.

Likewise lying for an unjust cause is absolutely wrong (like bearing false witness) yet lying for a just cause is NOT absolutely wrong and can possibly be righteous!

We have had a debate about the end justifying the means and you stated that you did not believe that and that the Bible did not teach that. Are you changing that statement or just saying these are not examples of the ends justifying the means.

 

[Amadis]

'Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay.' Mean what you say.

That does not mean that I should have to say something in every situation. Sometimes, in order to avoid telling a truth that may harm someone, I need to be silent, and -- if necessary -- take the consequences of that silence (just as I take the consequences of doing the right thing in other situations).

If the Nazis ask me if Anne Frank is hiding in the attic, I say nothing, regardless of the consequences.

Play-acting is different: when I pretend to be someone else on stage, and say things I may not believe, everyone in the audience is in on the 'deception', and no one is deceived.

 

[bill betzler]

I will wager that those who lie, any lie, are just not willing to pay the price for the truth.

E.g., the Nazis knock on your door and want you to give up the Jews. You could take another path that does not require lying.

It falls under this law:

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Amadis
If the Nazis ask me if Anne Frank is hiding in the attic, I say nothing, regardless of the consequences.

Thank God you were not in that situation because you would have been the cause of both yours AND Anne Franks death.

What a tragedy that modern day Christians have lost the ability to think.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight:

Thank you so much for you input there. I think Hank and I were chasing our own tails a bit, and you put the points in sharper focus in many less words than I do.

Hank.... I will adding my own thoughts soon.... I have some wheat and tares issues asked of me in the eschatology forum that requires my attention.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by bill betzler
I will wager that those who lie, any lie, are just not willing to pay the price for the truth.

E.g., the Nazis knock on your door and want you to give up the Jews. You could take another path that does not require lying.

It falls under this law:

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

What has gotten into you people?

Have you all thrown out your brains?

If the Nazi's are at your door and they are suspicious that you have a family of Jews in your attic and you say... "No sir, I there is no body in the house but me and my wife." you think that is wrong???????

Is it any wonder that many non-believers reject Christianity based on what they hear Christians saying?

 

[Jaltus]

Here we go again, do you guys actually read my posts or not?

Knight and Dee Dee,

GOD DOES NOT ENDORSE UNTRUTH AT ALL! The Bible explicitly says that God does not lie (tell falsehoods, literally) in Titus 1:2. We are to do what God does I John 2:6. Jesus is the embodyment of truth. THEREFORE we are to tell the TRUTH.

Deception is not necessarily telling an untruth. Deception means trying to fool someone. You can fool people by telling them the truth. Therefore, deception can be ok, but lying (meaning telling untruths in order to deceive) is never right and is expressly forbidden, hence FALSE TESTIMONY.

Knight is not and never has dealt with my position. He makes up what he thinks I am saying and then attacks that, which is ludicrous.

I have clearly defined what I am taking lying to be and I have clearly defined deception, something Knight has not done. I am making a disticntion between them based on biblical distinctions (well, Greek ones anyway, my Hebrew is not solid enough to say there is a huge semantic distinction).

All you are arguing is that there is one place in the Bible where people deceive and God praises them for their faith. Lying is not explicit in the passage, it is an assumption you are making. The Rahab passage has been thoroughly disproven (just look at the chapter as a whole and tell me all those people are praised for lying instead of for faith, and you quickly see how vacuous an argument it is).

Dee Dee,

I'll reply to you later tonight, I have to go make dinner.

 

[bill betzler]

Looks like Amadis and I were on the same wave length. I was in post reply when he was posting.

I'm sure Hank didn't mean to insinuate anything immoral in his analogy toward Dee Dee. Obviously a poor choice of a mental picture though.

 

[bill betzler]

Knight,

If the Nazi's are at your door and they are suspicious that you have a family of Jews in your attic and you say... "No sir, I there is no body in the house but me and my wife." you think that is wrong???????

Yeeeessss. Knight , it isn't easy telling the truth, it is very difficult. The costs are enormous to the individual in every situation of ones life. But the rewards are also great.

Is it any wonder that many non-believers reject Christianity based on what they hear Christians saying?

I surmise that the opposite is true. We are filling up the churches because they are told that their christianity can be bought with a few cheap words of confession.

 

[Amadis]

Shall we then sin so that grace may abound? God forbid.

Shall we then return evil for evil? So, according to some people here, we SHOULD slap the one who slaps us, because it serves some "good" or higher purpose (the proud and the arrogant used that argument for centuries, in direct contradiction of Christ -- because they thought maintaining their 'honor' was the higher good).

Do we do wrong because we think it's less wrong than something else? Lying to avoid some other wrong is like stealing less than someone else does, and then justifying it because it's less than what someone else stole.

Some here think God will smile on them lying (and what else -- stealing, beating, raping?) because they "meant well". OK, where do we draw the line? At fighting? At fornication? At gossiping? Christ is wiser: He says, "Say what you mean; leave it at that; take the consequences; do not add by one iota to the amount of wrong in the world."

And by the way, if the Nazis suspect Jews in my house, they are not going to be stopped by either my silence or my lying. The Lord expects evil to happen in the world; He doesn't expect us to add to it.

 

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

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.

Again, not true. I was pointing out that in order for it to be a lie, untruth must be involved. The same is not true for deception. This is an important point you keep neglecting. Lying and deception overlap only when untruth is used in order to deceive.

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)

Ok, no problem.

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.)

This is exactly the definition I have argued for all along, though I think there is an error or two in your transcription (there is a spot of bad grammar).

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!!!

That is not what the above definition says, it says only uttering falsehoods. Note that it does not start a new definition, it only elaborates.

However, now we are digressing into English semantics instead of biblical ones. I made my case from the Greek text, something you have been unable to refute. The Greek clearly indicates that lying is telling a nontruth.

Again, this does not matter as what my argument is and always has been is that telling an untruth is always wrong.

On what planet?? You cannot take the second one of either selection for they define using a truth to deceive as lying.

See above discussion.

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.

Again, English definitions are irrelevant and you know it. Are you arguing from the Bible or your own rhetoric? My point is still that THEY SAID NOTHING FALSE. The scripture does not say that they did. Oh, and before Knight comments, the Hebrew says "and" in verse 20, not therefore. That is an erronious translation. Verse 21 does say explicitly it was the fear of the Lord which caused their blessing, not the "lying," which very much does disprove Knight's point.

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.

No wonder you are a mod, you sling mud with the best of them. I guess it takes outrageous statements and invective language to argue, or at least be a mod. First off, the link to Clinton is uncalled for and stupid. If you cannot argue your point, use highly inflammatory language praying on emotion instead of intellect. Well done. Secondly, I have already clearly noted and defeated your objection in a previous post. My point was that they did not in fact say all, they said what they did as a generalization and Pharoah took it to mean all. That is the line between deception and telling an untruth (as I have detailed in my posts).

As for your argument about Clinton again, get real. Trying dealing with the issue at hand instead of trying to alienate people from my view. Really, Dee Dee, I expect better from you.

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.

No, I am responding to WHAT THE TEXT SAYS, maybe you should try it instead of importing your own beliefs. It would be refreshing.

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.

(GW) "Never steal, lie, or deceive your neighbor.

(NIV) 11 "'Do not steal. "'Do not lie. "'Do not deceive one another.

(KJV) Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

(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??

Interesting but wrong interpretation. The Hebrew makes it clear that each is in fact seperate. How? Disjunctive markings in the text. Sorry, you lose, go home. Not that I changed the list, showing that all of the above actually AGREE with me on this one.

I'll get to your other post later.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

No wonder you are a mod, you sling mud with the best of them. I guess it takes outrageous statements and invective language to argue, or at least be a mod.

]

Thanks!! Did you hear that Knight?? I am one of the boys.

Seriously Jaltus... being a tad bit melodramatic again are we?? I have already had to call you out on that before.

On one quick note you said

Disjunctive markings in the text.

First of all, as the comparitive translations I posted show, most translators don't agree with you as they have made it clear in their translations that all three terms are modified by the phrase "one another." Second, you are aware that all disjunctive markers were added to the text around the time of the MT?? You cannot argue that a textual addition proves your point, if it is in fact as you say (which I dispute as does the translators of the posted editions who I daresay are more qualified than you are in Hebrew), all you have proven is that a certain group of Jews who added the markers saw it your way. You did not deal with the moral absurdity you created that would make it okay to deceive unbelievers but not believers. [invective statement that qualifies me to be a mod]Have you been smoking banana peels again??[/end of invective statement that qualifies me to be a mod]

I like it when you get spunky. Grrrrrrr......

 

[Jaltus]

Um, and I pointed out that you were WRONG about the translations backing you.

Sorry.

As for the MT, that is what translators base their decisions on. The Masoretes know a whole lot more than modern scholars do because they SPOKE Hebrew. Sorry, but that was a bad argument from you, just all around a bad argument.

 

[Jaltus]

Oh, and the comment about the invective language was a barb aimed more at Knight than you. Though you are doing it much more than normal.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

No Jaltus, the translations back me, but I see I will have to spoon feed it to you (smile) - Open wide here comes Mr. Airplane.....

Talk to ya soon.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Oh, and the comment about the invective language was a barb aimed more at Knight than you. Though you are doing it much more than normal.

Knight inspires me. I think we make a good tag team.

 

[Hank]

What a tragedy that modern day Christians have lost the ability to think.

Knight the tragedy is that Christians now only think like everyone else does. In the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus was talking about turning the other cheek and other difficult things that did not make sense he summed up by saying

“For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?”

You think like the publicans of today do and call it common sense because it’s too much of a sacrifice to follow the teachings of Jesus. What is the difference between what you are saying do and what any atheist that post here would recommend doing? I understand their position since they don’t believe in any heavenly reward. But you supposedly believe that God will reward adherence to his truths even though they require sacrifice, sometimes tremendous sacrifice. The early church practiced the teachings of Jesus and paid a high price. But they gained a lot because people saw the truth in those teachings and multiplied. Today the church is just a shadow of that truly remarkable beginning.

 

[Freak]

DD, I think Jaltus has brought up some good points you have failed to deal with.