If God is the absolute authority, and the bible, as His absolutely authoritative word to us, says He doesn't lie, why is it we feel we know better?
We are going in circles. Remember the point about when the bible tells us that God does not repent and I pointed out that He doesn't repent OF EVIL and how God cannot do evil in the sense that doing so would be against His will and no one has the ability to make God act against His own will and you agreed that it was a goop explanation? Remember all of that? Can you not see how it applies here or are you choosing not to see it?
In short, we "know better" by the EXACT SAME AUTHORITY THAT YOU YOURSELF CITE!!!!!
Does the bible contradict itself or is your doctrine false? Hmm?
What did God want to accomplish in this case? It wasn't just to establish Saul's kingdom, but to establish a good and righteous kingdom, eventually through His own Son. He's not going to fail.
This is irrelevant and ignores the plain reading of the text which contradicts your doctrine. "Would have establish your kingdom forever" is what the text says.
But God has a higher goal, a greater good, than just getting Israel to do what He wants done--He wants Israel to believe in Him. Forcing someone to believe is not getting them to believe, it's removing their personhood, making them no longer capable of belief, since they become a puppet. Puppets don't believe anything.
Quite so! I can tell you that you don't see it but you just gave away the farm with this statement. Love must be given freely. That is one cornerstone doctrine of open theism. All other forms of doctrines are forced to either reject that premise or accept contradictions.
Only "for good reason". God being mistaken is not a good reason.
Again, you seem blind to the text of scripture. The point is that God expected one thing and got another and so repented of the course He intended to go down. It happened with Sol, it happened with Nineveh, it happened on more than one occasion with Israel as a nation.
These examples don't say God didn't know the present conditions of Abraham or the Sodomites.
Yes it does.
What He didn't know was how they would respond to God's tests, whether Abraham would be willing to give his only son and whether the men of Sodom would be willing to repent. Do you think God can't read minds, but needs to actually visit a place to find out what they're thinking?
That's your doctrinal interpretation. The text itself couldn't be clearer. It explicitly states that God is going to go down and check it out and then He'll know, one way or the other. Read the passage to any third grader and ask him what its saying. He will get it right!
I listed things that I could see supported by scripture. You might have noticed they weren't in "omni" and "im" form.
Nobody cares what it's called. It's the concept that matters. A rose by any other name...
Choosing the lesser of two evils when no righteous choice is allowed is still choosing righteously.
This is foolishness of the highest order.
Not only that but it is your doctrine that has pinned you into such a corner that you would come right out and call evil, righteousness. That's as good a reason to drop a doctrine as I have ever heard of.
No. God isn't under any other authority.
Unresponsive.
Can you not see that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here? Everyone else can.
The Muslims say that they are allowed to lie to an infidel. Are we allowed to lie to any unbeliever? Where is line drawn, and who gets to draw it.
There is no line, per se. It's called wisdom and discernment. You can start by understanding that avoiding telling a lie to an enemy at the expense of your brother's life, is not wisdom. Most teenagers would have enough discernment to figure it out that far. There are other situations that aren't as clear and would be difficult for anyone. We'll let God be the judge in such cases.
God asked for someone to persuade, not for someone to lie.
No, Derf. He commanded that the person be persuade by means of a lie. That is explicitly what happened. Why are you afraid of what the scripture plainly says?
The lying part was the other party's idea. God allowed it.
He didn't! He commanded it! "Go and do it." are the specific words that the scripture itself put into God's own mouth.
Someone asked permission to lie, and God granted it.
Thank you for conceding the debate except that it wasn't mere permission, God commissioned the lie for a specific purpose which was realized.
But He only granted it knowing that the truth would also be told (by Micaiah). Therefore God did not lie to Ahab, but gave him an option to believe or disbelieve God.
Your "therefore" doesn't follow, Derf. You're grasping for straws here and ignoring the text.
And for what reason?
Well, not if your mind is already made up.
No, I disagree.
You missed the point, Derf.
Do you understand what "begging the question" is? It happens when you make an argument that presupposes the question that is being debated. My point was that your argument was question begging because you made the argument assuming that lying is always a sin, which is the point being debated. The reason it's a fallacy is because all I have to do to refute it is to assert the opposite presupposition, which I did. Your only possible response is the one you gave, "I disagree" and we're back were we started.
Do you think Satan was commanded by God to tempt Adam and Eve, to lie to them? Why or why not?
No, of course he wasn't.
Because Adam and Eve were not God's enemies.
It isn't wrong to deceive your enemies in a righteous fight. That seems to be the clear teaching of scripture. Adam was not God's enemy nor would God attempt to trick someone into doing evil in any case.
Incidentally, Lucifer, was not yet Satan when he was in the Garden. Had he been, it isn't likely that God would have permitted him into the Garden to begin with but Lucifer, the Archangel would have had freedom to go where he liked.
Do you think Satan tempted them without permission?
Lucifer, yes, without question. There is no evidence to the contrary.
Lying, in and of itself, is not a goodly and godly thing to do.
It is, if it done for the right reasons. So says God's word, as has been repeatedly established.
Only in context can it be thought of as goodly or godly.
Lying, in and of itself, is not an evil thing to do. Only in context can it be thought of as evil or ungodly.
Rip it out of context, and it is an evil thing.
This is true of most things evil. Just as darkness is a negation of light, so evil is a negation of the good.
If it is evil without the context, then it is evil in the context, but greater evil makes it the better choice, in context.
Meaningless nonsense. Every concept that language can communicate is context dependent.
God wasn't choosing evil.
Agreed. No one here has ever suggested otherwise. This is you begging the question again by presupposing that telling a lie is always evil.
He allowed someone to lie to Ahab, but He also made sure Ahab was told the truth. Similar to Adam and Eve in the garden.
There's your doctrine and then there's God's word.