ARCHIVE: Lying is never righteous!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Bill, you make no sense my friend. The praise for Rahab's faithful actions with the spies appears in the great hall of faith Chapter in Hebrews which is specifically referring to eternal life and eternal rewards and that act specifially involves her lie. Your unjust steward example proves my point since Jesus specifically mentions he was unjust. There is NEVER any condemnation of Rahab's alleged immoral lie because it was not immoral. She did the right thing. It is I who have made my prima facie case. It is the exact same situation with the Hebrew midwives. And as someone mentioned, Corrie Ten Boom, though you would have us believe that her "lying" to save Jews from Hitler was something she needed to repent of. Nonsense. Something is wrong with your moral compass my friend. Additionally,
your "answers" are very selective and pick and choose out of my points to answer, thus, as such are nonanswers.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

It wasn't a lie. Samuel did take the heifer and sacrifice it.

How consistent are you going to be Bill? Did Clinton lie about Monica Lewinsky when he said "I did not have intercourse with that woman."

 

[mindlight]

Hank

Peter denies he even knew Jesus in order to save his own life by telling a
lie and this was a sin.
v
Rahab protects the men hiding in her house with a deception and that is not
a sin.

A prophet or a soldier obeys a kings call to deceive Gods enemies is not a
sin
v
A counsellor of the king tells him a lie - is a sin.

Peters end was to save his life at the expense of his allegiance to Christ
and thus to lie in that case was immoral - so his end does not justify his
means

Rahabs end was to protect the lives of the men in her house who served the
true God and his people and she did so at the risk of her own life. She
deceives deceived men and is praised for it. Her end is justified by her
means. Indeed to have spoken the truth would have probably been a sin in
this case.

David deceives Achish and thereby strengthens the kingdom God had given him
and annointed him to rule. His end justified his means.

Jeremiah tells a lie to liars on the order of the king. His obedience to
the king was his highest priority in this case and he did not sin.

The counsellors of the king tell him lies which they even pretend are the
words of God and thereby they sin.

Those who have the Spirit can expect His guidance in every situation and we
have Gods word as a model for our actions also.

 

[Gavin]

How consistent are you going to be Bill? Did Clinton lie about Monica Lewinsky when he said "I did not have intercourse with that woman."

lol! You are pretty cool, Dee Dee!

 

[Hank]

Relativism teaches that morals are relative to the person. In any given identical situation, what is moral for you to do, may not be moral for me to do. There is no absolute rule by which to objectively measure our actions. That is not at all what I have advocated here. I am applying an ABSOLUTE hierarchy of morals which would be applied ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENTLY. As Koukl has put it, “Moral relativism doesn’t have to do with relative circumstances, it has to do with relative people,” and this distinction makes a world of difference, i.e. the difference between Biblical and unbiblical moral functioning. Biblical morality upholds a standard that is outside of and binding upon all persons.

Dee Dee by saying this you are saying that no matter what action you want to consider, you can find a worse action. Therefore you can justify anything if you can just describe something worse. This reminds me of the battle between Knight and Zak where Knight kept using an example that was what everyone would have thought was immoral. Zak just thought up a more immoral reason for why he was forced into doing the immoral action and Knight cried foul as if this didn’t apply for some reason. And if that can be done, then nothing is absolutely immoral because it can be caused by something even more immoral. In other words, it’s all relative.

I see also that the implications of this strong stand have made even its would-be adherents internally uncomfortable by the splitting of the hairs that has gone on. If anyone wants to be strictly technical on this, equivocation would be lying and not being entirely forthright would be lying. Jesus was not always completely forthright, nor has God throughout the entire Bible. Why is this not lying??

I won’t speak for others but you haven’t see me splitting hairs. I have said that lying is wrong period.

You have never answered my question so I’ll ask again. Do you believe that the end justifies the means?

 

[Hank]

Mindlight you have stated that the end justifies the means. I thought that concept was alien to Christian beliefs but apparently I was wrong. However this is the foundation for the belief that there is no absolute morality. You can justify any immoral act if the results are good enough with this philosophy.

 

[bill betzler]

Dee Dee,

Bill, you make no sense my friend. The praise for Rahab's faithful actions with the spies appears in the great hall of faith Chapter in Hebrews which is specifically referring to eternal life and eternal rewards and that act specifially involves her lie.

Dee Dee, thank you, I consider you a friend in the Lord also, but your theology is lacking. You say a lot of things but you are short on support. I applaud your opening and closing statements, but it's that presentation of the evidence to support those statements wherein you come up short.

Show me in Hebrews 11 where Rahab is given eternal life.

Heb
11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

Your unjust steward example proves my point since Jesus specifically mentions he was unjust. There is NEVER any condemnation of Rahab's alleged immoral lie because it was not immoral. She did the right thing. It is I who have made my prima facie case. It is the exact same situation with the Hebrew midwives. And as someone mentioned, Corrie Ten Boom, though you would have us believe that her "lying" to save Jews from Hitler was something she needed to repent of. Nonsense. Something is wrong with your moral compass my friend.

Sorry, no prima facie. My point was that people can be commended for doing wrong because they receive what they seek after. Rahab received what she sought after, her mortal life and that of her family. The point of the two biblical accounts is that these woman had faith, but not all faith leads to eternal life. Therefore, the absence of condemnation is not necessarily an acceptance of a moral goodness.

Additionally,
your "answers" are very selective and pick and choose out of my points to answer, thus, as such are nonanswers.

Ok, repost some point that you want specifically answered. You know in a court room, it isn't necessary to defeat each point. Destroy the foundations of those points and the credibility is on your side.

bill

 

[bill betzler]

How consistent are you going to be Bill? Did Clinton lie about Monica Lewinsky when he said "I did not have intercourse with that woman."

See Dee Dee, These are your answers. Show me where I was incorrect. I still say that he didn't lie. Your trying to make God the author of lies. You can't even try to justify that.

As far as Clinton goes, define your words and show me the evidence and I'll answer the question. At the minimum I'm sure they had verbal intercourse, since they worked together. Apparantly the word intercourse has many modifiers.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

As far as Clinton goes, define your words and show me the evidence and I'll answer the question. At the minimum I'm sure they had verbal intercourse, since they worked together. Apparantly the word intercourse has many modifiers.

Bill unless you retract that absolutely moronic comment, I am not going to waste my time responding to anything further you say. You can get peeved but that is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Gavin.. thanx!!! Not bad for an orthodox preterist postmillenial chick huh??


Hank... I will respond when I get a chance but right now I have promised something to a good friend on relationships within the Trinity and the implications for the Messianc reign. Not light writing I can assure you.

 

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

You have your own special definition of lying, so why don't we hammer out a definition for that?

First off, lying would not include intended deception, such as during war or during a game, as intentionally misleading someone in those circumstances is EXPECTED.

Thus, expectation would be part of the definition of lying.

Telling someone a truth which is not what they meant, though fulfills the question is not lying, such as the little girl telling the Nazis that the Jews were under her table, meaning under the floor, but the Nazis misunderstood. She told the truth, the other people misunderstood. Thus, understanding does not have to do with lying.

So far, we have intent but not understanding as part of lying.

The last sticky issue is "half-truths," or statements given as true with the intention to mislead. The Triune God does not do this. He does give answers people cannot hope to understand, but then He is God so people should expect that (if you think you can understand God totally, then you certaintly are confused). This concept of misleading would be the sticky issue. The intent is to not convey what the other person is looking for, but yet truth is still issued. Can a truth ever be a lie?

I would define a lie as something false that was said in order to deceive. Hence, using the truth to confuse is not a lie, as it is the truth.

 

[Xmansmommy]

I'd like to know what exactly is the difference between deceiving someone and lying to them? I view deception as a lie too. But perhaps I'm wrong. I can think of a few places in scripture where deception was tolerated by God with no "chastisment." For example, Abraham lying about Sarai being his sister and not his wife. (Gen 12:11-20) And this same thing was done again by Isaac regarding Rebekah (Gen 26:6-11) Also when Jacob stole Esau's birthright and blessing(matter of fact, Jacob flat out lied here)....just food for thought.

Grace and peace,
Linda

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

First off, lying would not include intended deception, such as during war or during a game, as intentionally misleading someone in those circumstances is EXPECTED.

I don't disagree Jaltus, but prove that statement from the Bible. You will find no such explicit exception in the Bible, and thus, you have opened Pandora's box with that one and assisted me in proving my point. And I noticed that no one has dealt with the Romans 13 issue (amongst others that I have brought forth). With the dodging that is going on here, I would think I had a bunch of futurists cornered wherein I would have to insist upon a quote and answer format to keep everyone from chasing their own tails.

 

[Jaltus]

Romans 13? I must have missed that. Where is it?

As for proving that lying does not include war time tactics, I'd say look at a dictionary, Greek English Hebrew or other. You are making up a definition for lying that does not exist in any language. Sorry, but that is bogus. You are trying to win by defiing the problem to fit your slant, which is a false method of working. You are making a lexical fallacy here.

 

[Jaltus]

Also, Sarai was Abraham's sister, half sister. Abraham's father (Haran, IIRC) adopted her.

 

[Jaltus]

Ahh, ok, the Romans 13 "escape clause." I gotcha now.

The problem is that you are taking a single text. The Bible interprets the Bible, does it not? If you work canonically, you will see that "we must obey God rather than men." Romans 13 does not supercede Acts 5:29.

We all know that we must try to have the character of God. We also know that "God...does not lie," Titus 1:2. No matter what your definition of lying is, we know that GOD CANNOT LIE, so your definition better take that into account, or else give up the Bible as authoritative.

 

[Xmansmommy]

Also, Sarai was Abraham's sister, half sister. Abraham's father (Haran, IIRC) adopted her.

So half-truths don't constitute a lie? I guess I have a lot to learn What about Jacob lying to Isaac? Was that a lie or just a half truth as well?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

BTW - though I cannot respond in full right now... now that you have found where I mentioned Romans 13 (which I will deal with more indepth) you should read again more carefully where in fact I did define the Biblical sin of lying as immoral deception. You have even conceded that not all deception is immoral, and thus have conceded my point in principle. We now just disagree on the scope of what is immoral deception and benign or even moral deception, but the cat is already out of the bag. Not all deception is immoral, thus not all deception is sinful.

 

[Jaltus]

Xmansmommy,

I did not say it was a good thing, I was just pointing out that she was in fact his sister.

Which demonstrates my point about God not endorsing lies, just allowing them, much like how sin happens at all. Remember, the OT is a battle against idolatry more than anything else.

Dee Dee,

I am glad you are proud of yourself, but if you ever read any of my posts before you would have seen that I am but being consistent with my own hermeneutic. It is your shifting definition of "lying" that is the problem. Ever since the last thread I have maintained the same thing. Lying is intentionally telling untruth in order to deceive. Telling truth in order to deceive is sneaky, but is nowhere condemned in the Bible. After all, Jesus was the truth, but that does not mean all are saved (think about it, Jesus as truth means He is the only truth, but not all accept Him, many decide on untruth instead of truth, which does not mean Jesus lied, only that they were somehow deceived).

I have not maintained deception as sinful, only the telling of untruth. You say that the telling of untruth is ok. THAT is the disagreement.

 

[mindlight]

<<<<<<<Mindlight you have stated that the end justifies the means. I thought that concept was alien to Christian beliefs but apparently I was wrong. However this is the foundation for the belief that there is no absolute morality. You can justify any immoral act if the results are good enough with this philosophy.>>>>>>>>>>

Actually I have never stated that THE end justifies THE means. That is to make an abstraction out of something which should be taken case by case within the boundaries set by scripture. What I have done is share Biblical examples of when "lying" was apparently OK and when it clearly was not.

One thing I have noticed about this forum even amongst people who I might tend to agree with is the abstract/academic way in which they speak of concrete things. Everyone is looking for Universals and philosophical absolutes and glorying in their own ability to argue the logic of their positions. I do not think the Bible is written in that kind of language. There are proverbs which apply in some circumstances and others which apply in others. There is narrative and Psalms which inspire and law which directs and provides clear boundaries but this style of arguing philosophical absolutes smacks of medieval scholasticism of the humanistic philosphising of the Greeks and the vain attempts of finite and limited intellects to box and label God into a nice convenient and controllable package.