 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > Ends and Means | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/19/2004 7:57 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Answering as a parent of young boys, here's my answer.
If you INTEND to deceive someone, then it is a lie. (Even if no words were uttered.)
But if, as in the case of our friend " " here, I was not deceived. If you told a two-year old, who watches videos repeatedly to see if it turns out the same everytime (I'm not joking about that!), that it actually was TV of a real guy in pain, then THAT would be a lie, and quite evil.
Notice, please, that I withdrew the two Rahab posts. I do think that the violence of war covers her, as the relationship with them was really being violated, on purpose, and more violently a few days later than then. But the fact you pointed out -- or implied -- that sometimes un-facts can be disceptions. (are false witness "against" in that harm is done to, and between, and by that beyond onto the very nature of truth that God establishes and gives to our care, etc.) So I removed them.
PoW.
- thanks for asking.
The opposite of truth is a - - -. But, perhaps intent weighs in as well. Intending to be funny (appropriately), as we are on this board is not wrong - but talking to a two year old the same way would be totally inappropriate, which would call into question either your intent or your cognitive abilities.
Another factor that comes into play is relationship. We have a certain level of relationship with each other here on the board. There are expectations, and some freedoms extended as a result of relationship. You could say something to some, but not others - based on what your relationship is with that person. A lot of factors enter in.
Lieing is not as "straight forward" as "Thou shalt not lie." It was a rule; a commandment to make us aware of the seriousness of lieing, but thank goodness we live under grace. Grace is not a license to lie, but I believe that if we are sensitive to the Spirit, that we understand differences in light-hearted jesting (which depends on so many things in relationships), what Rahab did to obey God, and lieing to a customs officer, or high ranking official about what is in our suitcase (Bibles).
Lots to think about. Perhaps it is not as "black and white" as we would like it to be. I don't think it is.
Jo-Anne 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
sometimesisquint
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 91
| Posted 7/19/2004 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/19/2004 4:07 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
2 The king of Jericho was told, "Look! Some of the Israelites have come here tonight to spy out the land." 3 So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab: "Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land." 4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from. 5 At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don't know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them." 6 (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.) 7 So the men set out in pursuit of the spies on the road that leads to the fords of the Jordan, and as soon as the pursuers had gone out, the gate was shut.
She lied to keep someone from killing. That's cool? quote:
James 2
Was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
quote:
Hebrews 11:31
By faith, Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.
So where in these verses (the only one's I could find about Rahab outside of the story itself) does it approve of Rahab's lying? They approve of her "receiv[ing] the messengers and sending them out another way" and "welcom[ing] the spies in peace", not lying. Couldn't she have just said the spies knew their cover was blown and weren't in the house anymore? Would it have been wrong to say no?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/19/2004 4:37 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
quote:
2 The king of Jericho was told, "Look! Some of the Israelites have come here tonight to spy out the land." 3 So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab: "Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land." 4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from. 5 At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don't know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them." 6 (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.) 7 So the men set out in pursuit of the spies on the road that leads to the fords of the Jordan, and as soon as the pursuers had gone out, the gate was shut.
She lied to keep someone from killing. That's cool? quote:
James 2
Was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
quote:
Hebrews 11:31
By faith, Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.
So where in these verses (the only one's I could find about Rahab outside of the story itself) does it approve of Rahab's lying? They approve of her "receiv[ing] the messengers and sending them out another way" and "welcom[ing] the spies in peace", not lying. Couldn't she have just said the spies knew their cover was blown and weren't in the house anymore? Would it have been wrong to say no?
God's grace is amazing. She probably didn't qualify to "make the lineage" of Jesus either - but she did. If we gave a more personal example, such as lying to a terrorist, to protect the life of a loved one - would that be more acceptable? I'm sincerely wondering. I'm afraid I would lie. But thank goodness He is my righteousness. My righteousness does not depend on what I do or don't do. It is in Him. It is faith righteousness, not works righteousness.
If someone asked me if lieing is wrong - I would say, "Absolutely." If they asked me if I had ever lied - I would say, "Absolutely."
If they asked me if I would ever lie under such circumstances - I would hesitate; but if I were honest before God, I would say, "Absolutely." Does that make me less righteous? No.
Rahab was righteous. She obeyed God. She did not have to be perfect in order to be righteous, and neither do we.
My thoughts (humbly),
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/19/2004 9:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
You're starting to act like Bobber's version of a time-traveling God: Beaming himself from the future to rearrange the present so the next future is more meaningful and relevant. [Sometimesisquint]
Well what ive got to say about that Sometimesisquint is um....well...a....nope, nope, im not going to do it...i'll be a gentlemen and keep this thread on topic.... | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/19/2004 9:41 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
sometimesisquint
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 91
| Posted 7/20/2004 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 8/2/2004 7:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Can one of the ten commandments be broken without sin being incurred?
If not, then how would you explain Jesus breaking the sabbath and yet not incurring sin?
If you do not believe Jesus broke the sabbath, then how would you explain Jesus response to the Pharisees? Jesus did not say that He did not break the sabbath law. He said that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. He appealed to a higher "law". The "law" of love.
thanks,
Iconoclast
I am so glad that we live under grace  , and not the law. The law did not make anyone righteous. Our devotional at camp was on Simeon. Simeon was not a priest, but scripture says he was devout and righteous, but you got a very clear picture that he was righteous because of what he longed for. It was his heart that made him righteous. I want to be known for my heart - not for anything that I've said or done. I want my heart for Christ, and for people to be more important than following any rules. Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart. It's only Him we have to please, ultimately. That is such a relief!
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 8/2/2004 7:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Can one of the ten commandments be broken without sin being incurred?
If not, then how would you explain Jesus breaking the sabbath and yet not incurring sin?
If you do not believe Jesus broke the sabbath, then how would you explain Jesus response to the Pharisees? Jesus did not say that He did not break the sabbath law. He said that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. He appealed to a higher "law". The "law" of love.
thanks,
Iconoclast
I am so glad that we live under grace , and not the law. The law did not make anyone righteous. Our devotional at camp was on Simeon. Simeon was not a priest, but scripture says he was devout and righteous, but you got a very clear picture that he was righteous because of what he longed for. It was his heart that made him righteous. I want to be known for my heart - not for anything that I've said or done. I want my heart for Christ, and for people to be more important than following any rules. Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart. It's only Him we have to please, ultimately. That is such a relief!
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
I guess I should add here, that I realize that what we say and do is evidence of what is in our heart (most times). But, what Simeon showed me is that God sees past those things - to the heart. The pharisees kept the letter of the law, but they were not righteous. It is the heart that God sees - that man cannot always see.
I've always felt that people are more important to the Father than rules. Perhaps it comes back to intent once more. God knows our intent. He knows our desires, our longings, our fears, our failings (of which there are many), and the amazing thing is - we are still righteous in Him. It wasn't the laws which Simeon fulfilled that made him righteous. It was the way in which he carried out what God gave him to do, and the desires of his heart. He could do NOTHING, just as we can do NOTHING, to be considered righteous.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 8/2/2004 9:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
I'm doing some editing. Another one of the (Pharisee invented additions to the) ten commandments is to not work on the sabbath day. I'm not desagreeing with Jesus. There is a higher law to be appealed to, but that doesn't mean that Jesus broke the lower law that He was accused of breaking. In fact I would argue there are three levels of laws in play here: The highest - love, the middle - the ten commandments, the lowest - extra biblical laws added by the Pharisees. Jesus was accused of doing things on the Sabbath that some thought made the sabbath unholy. Jesus didn't deny doing those things. He did deny that what He did was unholy.
I think that Jesus was able to do what He did with confidence - because His worth; His identity was in the Father. He knew who He was. He knew who His source was, and He drew life from that source. Our difficulty (IMHO) is when we do not realize our identity in Him; when we do not recognize Him as our source; when our worth comes from other things (people, events, things...). We can enjoy all of those, but we need to live from our sense of identity, and our worth in Him. That is how Jesus could face what He knew was ahead; unspeakable pain and suffering - because He was tapped into His source of life and strength.
I agree - the greatest commandment - is love; loving Him, and loving others - and that fulfills the entire law. Without love, the law was meaningless.
'Nite
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/3/2004 3:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast,
quote:
Another one of the ten commandments is to not work on the sabbath day. Jesus broke this commandment in order to heal someone. And it wasn't exactly an emergency or anything either. The woman had this problem for 18 years (or something like that) so surely Jesus could have waited another day to heal her. And yet He had no problem breaking this command to heal her.
Jesus answer to the Pharisees is that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. In other words, the law was made for man and not man for the law.
If you lived in Nazi Germany, you were hiding a Jewish family and the Nazi's came knocking at the door asking if you had any Jewish people in your house would you lie to protect them?
If you chose not to lie because that would be against the law who is it that you are really serving - other people or yourself?
My favorite philosopher, Noah Porter, said that though we are duty bound to be completely truthful to those to whom we owe information of any kind, it may be that we do not owe all persons in every circumstance information in the first place. And if not, then in those circumstances perhaps the truth may not be owed to such persons (such as Nazis).
We owe love, of course. But is giving Nazi's all the information they wish really loving them?? Are they not going to use some of that information to defy God and wrong their fellow man? This gets at the principled approach you are arguing for. E.g., didn't David once act like a crazed man? Wasn't that deception of a sort? And if so, was it wrong? I think not. I'd like Mr. Boyd or some ethics guru to address Porter's claim from a Biblical perspective.
It should be noted that even if Porter is right, it would take a very cautious approach to not slide down the slippery slope. So please don't think I'm taking this lightly.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/7/2004 6:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
I'm doing some editing. Another one of the (Pharisee invented additions to the) ten commandments is to not work on the sabbath day. I'm not desagreeing with Jesus. There is a higher law to be appealed to, but that doesn't mean that Jesus broke the lower law that He was accused of breaking. In fact I would argue there are three levels of laws in play here: The highest - love, the middle - the ten commandments, the lowest - extra biblical laws added by the Pharisees. Jesus was accused of doing things on the Sabbath that some thought made the sabbath unholy. Jesus didn't deny doing those things. He did deny that what He did was unholy.
Excellent observation Sahid! Well said.
So, then what does it mean that one should "not bear false witness"?
Bonhoeffer wrote an excellent treatise on what it means to "tell the truth" in his book Creation and Fall. He shows that the meaning of this can only be understood in relationship with others. One example he uses is if a teacher asks a young student in class if their father is a drunk. Bonhoeffer argues that this question is inappropriate in this context. He says that for the young student to answer yes is to betray his father and for the young student to answer no is to lie. The best response is to avoid the question, but a young student is often not sophisticated enough to do so. Thus, if the student says no the burden of the lie does not fall on the student but on the teacher.
In the same vein the burden of the lie to the nazis at the door falls back on the nazis and not on the person at the door.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 8/8/2004 5:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid said:
But thank God that there is forgiveness! If Jesus forgives those who killed Him, he will certainly also forgive the person who lies to the Nazi soldier.
Semeia:
Why would God need to forgive someone for lying to protect an innocent person? Don't you think if they handed over the Jews to the Nazis out of some misguided notion of "truthfulness" that they would then REALLY need forgiveness, since the subsequent murder-by-gas-chamber would be on their head?
If an axe murderer was at your door asking, "Is anybody home?" would you consider it a lie to keep quiet?
Truth is not absolute. Truth is alive. Truth seeks out life in every situation, whether it be earthly or eternal.
Truth is never a fixed, dead thing, like the statement: thou shalt not lie. Plenty of circumstances in life require a truth that is not always a cold dedication to the facts at hand, a truth that seeks out life, love, God, and the eternal. Principles themselves are not life, love, God or the eternal. Principles can be a guide, but the minute they become a god they lead to death.
If your eighty-year-old grandmother asks if you like her new shirt, and the skin of her arms hangs down like wet laundry flapping in the wind, and she should have said goodbye to tank tops half a century ago, the truest thing is still to plant a big kiss on her cheek and tell her she looks like a flower in the springtime. Then watch her bloom.
But it isn't just a matter of white lies. Sometimes the truth just isn't someone else's business. If your child wets the bed, and the kids on the bus tease him, it would be perfectly truthful (even though it isn't the "facts") for the child, or the child's parents, or the child's sibling, to DENY that the child wets the bed. The TRUTH is that it is no one's business outside the family whether or not the child wets the bed.
So if the axe-murderer (or stalker, or stranger, or just plain annoying person) wants to know where you live, guess what, you don't have to tell them. You can even give them a false address, to keep them from following you.
God who knows all does not need an explanation for why someone lied rather than handing an innocent family over to the executioner. There is no forgiveness required. If you heard your child lie to the bully down the street, saying that they didn't wet the bed, when in fact they did, would you punish him? Would you need to forgive him? Of course not - your child is the one being attacked. The bully is the one needing forgiveness, not the "lying" child.
Sometimes being less than truthful is indeed a lie, and meant to be self-serving, and hurtful. But sometimes being less than truthful is love in action, and in those cases forgiveness is not required.
Otherwise, life is just a sick game, where people who save people's lives or a child's dignity need to jump through hoops to satisfy a legalistic God.
The God I know and love isn't like that.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/8/2004 5:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Semeia
If your eighty-year-old grandmother asks if you like her new shirt, and the skin of her arms hangs down like wet laundry flapping in the wind, and she should have said goodbye to tank tops half a century ago
Thanks.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 8/8/2004 7:30 PM (GMT -6) | | | There is a good book out that has a chapter on lying. Its called "Knowing The Unknowable God," by Lucas and in it he deals with how we view lying as simply a issue of facts where as God may not see it that way. Excellant observations in it! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 8/9/2004 3:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid said:
I do think it's wrong to lie unless sin is absolutely unavoidable. But if sin is unavoidable, it's no longer morally wrong.
Semeia:
If it's no longer morally wrong, why do you say that God needs to forgive? It is the forgiveness aspect of it that I was responding to. And when you say that "sin is absolutely unavoidable" are you talking about the sin of the murder (for example), or the "sin" of the lie?
I would say that if you lie in order to protect someone's life, or even their dignity, it is not a sin.
Sahid said:
The axe murderer - You don't have to lie to withhold truth.
Semeia:
That seems like splitting hairs. Let's say you DO lie to the axe-murderer or rapist. You say, "No, that's not my car" when in fact it is, or "My husband's coming back in a minute, he just went to get his gun" when in fact he didn't. You LIE to keep someone from killing you. Why would that require God's forgiveness?
Sahid said:
The grandma - If you tell her she's beautiful and mean it, it's not a lie. Beauty comes in many forms, not just clothes.
Semeia:
In my example the Grandma asked specifically about her shirt. I would have no problem telling her the UNTRUTH that her shirt looked great. Period. Bald-faced lie. Like I said, the shirt looked terrible. But I would consider my compliment of her truly ugly shirt to be the right thing to do, because the bigger truth is that at eighty years old the "right" shirt isn't going to make much difference. And beauty does come in many forms, but it doesn't come in the form of that tank top on that woman, and my grandma is very persistent and she's not going to stop until I give her an answer about whether or not I like her shirt. So I'm going to lie about it, and not feel the slightest twinge of guilt, because at that moment it's my form of loving my grandmother.
But I am not confused at all about whether or not it is a lie. It is a lie, one I would never ask forgiveness for.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
| 80 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:40 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|