ARCHIVE: Lying is never righteous!

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

Onto your second post (smart of you to split it up, not so smart to try to take me on).

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 is in fact false. God's character is not more love than truth. Jesus (and hence God) IS truth, just as God IS love. He is not one more than the other. You are promoting a nonbiblical view of God.

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.

Well, if you are going to make stupid scenarios, expect stupid answers. I can only rise so far above the morass you try to put me in. (I thought you would get a kick out of that little speel there). Seriously, if you do not want an answer like that, stick to the issue at hand instead of making up hypothetical situations. I would not go into business in the first place, I am an academician. Your response is also less than helpful.

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.

The II Thess passage is irrelevent. In fact, the entire above paragraph is irrelevent. You still did not deal with what the Greek word means, and it is very important for my theological argument from God's character hinges on it. The word for lying in Greek means SAYING SOMETHING FALSE. It does not mean or imply or include truth for deceptive reasons.

Since this text also says “to one another,” it is okay to lie to unbelievers?

Taken by itself it would, taken canonically it cannot.

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.

Of course He praises them for their FAITH, not their (alleged) lies, which invalidates 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??

One can have faith and still sin. She was commended for her faith, not for her sin. She was commended for fearing God, not for lying. Your case is that she was commended for lying, but that is in fact an argument from silence since her lying IS NEVER COMMENTED UPON, either good or bad. Using your insane way of reading the Bible I guess it is okay to be a prostitute since she is not condemned for that either.

Honestly, do you have a hermeneutic at all? Don't you see how absurd this makes your belief structure have to be in order to remain consistent?

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.

Yup, and being a harlot is a good thing. Her faith was in saving them, notice the lying is not mentioned by her harlotry is. Must be a good thing to be a harlot then since it is not explicitly condemned and is in fact mentioned where she is praised.

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.”

Really? If it is so central, why is it only mentioned in the narrative AND NOT ANY OTHER TIME SHE IS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE? Looks like it is only central to you. Again, her being a harlot was not condemned either, but I do not see you looking at that as an exciting new profession not explicitly condemned by the Bible in one passage.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jaltus, didn't I tell you I was limiting my straw intake?? Are you that disrespectful of my diet that you give me two large servings in one day?? You have enough straw now to build a whole family including their dog Spot.

 

[Jaltus]

Just trying to be like you, my dear scarecrow.

 

[Hank]

DD I just saw your pump me up picture. WOW! Would you beat me up sometimes? LOL

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Hank:

DD I just saw your pump me up picture. WOW! Would you beat me up sometimes? LOL

Thanx!!! What? The spanking I am giving you here isn't enough?? LOLOLOL.... if you really want a good beating (and if you are a futurist) debate me on eschatology next time. I guarantee you won't be able to sit for a week. Ask Jaltus, he once got the very special Dee Dee Eschatology treatment. LOLOLOLOL

And Hank thanks for breaking in with the small talk... it helps to diffuse the insensity between believers that can sometimes happen in a debate.

 

[Hank]

Thanx!!! What? The spanking I am giving you here isn't enough?? LOLOLOL.... if you really want a good beating (and if you are a futurist) debate me on eschatology next time. I guarantee you won't be able to sit for a week. Ask Jaltus, he once got the very special Dee Dee Eschatology treatment. LOLOLOLOL

Bring it on DD. I like the rough stuff.

DD I don’t know what a futurist is or what eschatology is so I’ll have to do some checking. However I don’t think I’m a very good debater as I don’t have any training in that field. I just put my two cents worth in sometimes.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Oh, and Hank, did you like the part where I brought up how Jaltus totally undermined everything you were arguing for?? Not that I am telling you what to post, but it would be interesting to see you take him on in that one point.

And I forewarned Jaltus that he fell on his own sword in his last post to me [upon further reflection it was over several posts] so I am giving him warning to retract his comments to save him further public humiliation at my hands. See how nice I am??

 

[Hank]

Oh, and Hank, did you like the part where I brought up how Jaltus totally undermined everything you were arguing for?? Not that I am telling you what to post, but it would be interesting to see you take him on in that one point.

I agree with Jaltus as I often do on his viewpoint. I do not agree on his means of getting there. If I did I would be arguing that the end justifies the means. However I am limited on the amount of time I can spend here and also you and Jaltus were having a discussion while you and I were also so I was just staying with ours and skimming over what the two of you were talking about. So I’ll just let Jaltus defend his argument and wait for you to reply to mine.

And I forewarned Jaltus that he fell on his own sword in his last post to me so I am giving him warning to retract his comments to save him further public humiliation at my hands. See how nice I am??

You are both nice and attractive DD but it doesn’t make you right.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

You are both nice and attractive DD

Flattery will get you everywhere

it doesn’t make you right

No, my arguments make me right :up: You might want to read what I get to post next though for it will be a painful illustration of Jaltus' falling on his own sword.

 

[Hank]

Ouch, well you are self-confident.

 

[billwald]

Acts 24:18-20
18 Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult.
19 Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me.
20 Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council,
(KJV)

Paul lied by inference. He wanted Felix to infer that he had been found innocent by the Council when in fact the trial was interrupted, not concluded.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Ouch, well you are self-confident.

That's one way to put it

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Now the means justifies the ends....

Now the means justifies the ends....

Dear Jaltus:

Well I warned you that you just imploded, but I guess now I will have to make it a painful public demonstration Would you expect any less??

The following has been your assertion for the majority of this thread:

Telling truth in order to deceive is nowhere condemned.

To which I responded (in part):

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.”

To which you obfuscated:

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.

To which I brilliantly responded:

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.

So, Jaltus is taking the position that it is okay to deceive unbelievers which of course refutes his earlier dogmatic statement that telling truth in order to deceive is NOWHERE condemned, and he has basically advocating the same position as I am, just with a different moral imperative. I have said that it is not immoral, and in fact righteous, in certain situation to lie. Jaltus is saying that it is not immoral in certain situations to deceive someone. He thinks it makes a whole honking world of difference that the vehicle for the deception is a truth rather than a falsehood… a reversal of Hank’s objection…. Jaltus has the means justifying the end, a logical absurdity.

 

[cirisme]

You people are all insane.

But so am I, so I love you all.

Let me start out by asking this, if you were in a situation where you had to choose between denying Jesus and living, or not denying Jesus and dying(sp?), which would you choose?

But, before you answer, read this:

But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. -Matthew 10:33

So we may boldly say: "The LORD is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?" -Hebrews 13:6

Answer this, and I'll establish relevance.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by cirisme
You people are all insane.

But so am I, so I love you all.

Let me start out by asking this, if you were in a situation where you had to choose between denying Jesus and living, or not denying Jesus and dying(sp?), which would you choose?

But, before you answer, read this:

But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. -Matthew 10:33

So we may boldly say: "The LORD is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?" -Hebrews 13:6

Answer this, and I'll establish relevance.

Are you asking if lies of omissions are a sin?

But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. -Matthew 10:33

The above verse has nothing to do with lying and saying your not a Christian when you really are (I.e., like Peter) yet has everything to do with accepting Jesus in the first place. Therefore if one rejects Jesus as his Saviour then he will not be saved - plain and simple.

Matthew 10:32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 “But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

So, I ask all of you.... are lies of omission always sinful? Or are there times when lies of omission are NOT sinful?

 

[cirisme]

Are you asking if lies of omissions are a sin?

No.

The above verse has nothing to do with lying and saying your not a Christian when you really are (I.e., like Peter) yet has everything to do with accepting Jesus in the first place. Therefore if one rejects Jesus as his Saviour then he will not be saved - plain and simple.

It has everything to do with it. I told you I would establish relevance once the question was answered.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by cirisme
It has everything to do with it. I told you I would establish relevance once the question was answered.

You better read the chapter again.

Jesus is instructing the apostles to...

Matthew 10:1 And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him

Matthew 10:7 “And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

Matthew 10:13 “If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.

Matthew 10:32 “ Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 “But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 10:40 “ He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.

The chapter has everything to do with converting unbelievers, NOT testing people who are already believers.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Knight...

I could be wrong (or gasp) I could actually be understanding what Ciris is trying to do.. but this is what I think. He has misunderstood our position as saying that the need to preserve life trumps every other moral imperative given. Thus, he is trying to box us into a corner thinking that consistency would demand that our position would say that we would deny Christ to save our own hides. Of course all of that is based upon a gross misunderstanding of the whole point in the first place.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Amadis
Shall we then sin so that grace may abound? God forbid.

Amadis please do not tear scripture from its context in attempt to make a point. In the verse you reference (Romans 6:1) Paul is making the case that since those in the Body are "dead to sin" it doesn't make it right or good to sin as he re-states just a couple verses later....(Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!). Secondly in an attempt to make this verse relevant to our discussion you have assumed that lying is "sinful" which of course is the basis of the discussion in the first place.

You continue...

Shall we then return evil for evil?

You are assuming that all lies are "evil" and they are not. It was not "evil" for the Hebrew midwives to lie to the Egyptian King was it?

You continue...

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.

Lying is NOT like stealing in any way! When someone steals they are taking property away from its rightful owner. Lying is simply the act of not telling the truth which in and of itself is morally neutral.

You continue...

Some here think God will smile on them lying

On occasion... if the right circumstances exist... GOD DOES SMILE on people for lying! And Gods word in the Bible is proof positive of it!

You continue...

(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."

If you have to build a strawman to make your point you don't have a point.

You continue...

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.

So... your saying you have told the truth and lead the Nazi's to the Jewish family hiding in your basement because God's expects evil to happen?

You are a sick person and I am thankful that REAL hero's have existed in history that weren't so brainless.

The true evil is the Nazi's slaughtering the Jews. If you lead the Nazi's to the hiding Jewish family it is YOU who are adding to the evil act! You have become a willing accomplice to the slaughter of the Jewish family! Their blood is directly on your hands!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Hey Knight...

I could be wrong (or gasp) I could actually be understanding what Ciris is trying to do.. but this is what I think. He has misunderstood our position as saying that the need to preserve life trumps every other moral imperative given. Thus, he is trying to box us into a corner thinking that consistency would demand that our position would say that we would deny Christ to save our own hides. Of course all of that is based upon a gross misunderstanding of the whole point in the first place.

I am not sure what cirisme is getting at but Matthew 10:33 has nothing to do with believers denying Christ. That is all I am saying.

But I am curious...
Is the act of denying who Christ is either directly or through omission ALWAYS sinful?