You know, why dont you give out a fake one you can remember like 1-1-11 or 2-2-22 or something like that. for you it could be 7-7-77 since 7 was your jersey number.This discussion has been done before, but I continue to point out that it is not good to lie about information like this. Take your choice between giving your real birthday and being able to forget your password, or don't give your birthday and don't forget you password. But don't lie about something just so that you can access a yahoo account for a pretend football league. Your integrity should be worth more than that.
You know, why dont you give out a fake one you can remember like 1-1-11 or 2-2-22 or something like that. for you it could be 7-7-77 since 7 was your jersey number.This discussion has been done before, but I continue to point out that it is not good to lie about information like this. Take your choice between giving your real birthday and being able to forget your password, or don't give your birthday and don't forget you password. But don't lie about something just so that you can access a yahoo account for a pretend football league. Your integrity should be worth more than that.
Putting false information down is an act of civil disobedience. It is a non-violent way to resist the encroachment of corporate america on our civil liberties.Putting a false birthday into a fantasy league is an act of civil disobedience? I don't see that... They aren't encroaching on your civil liberties; you give them that information in free will.
A really good webpage talking about integrity can be found here. (http://www.calministry.org/id49.html)
Matt, you are basically justifying this lack of integrity with temptation #4 from that article.
But supplying a fake DOB and some other info for a place that has no important reasons, I don't see any problem.Rationalizing something by saying that is in an area that doesn't seem really important goes against Luke 16:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A10&version=NIV)
I don't see protecting my identity as an issue of integrity. I think it is wise to withhold info that others do not need. Do I pay for it? Sure. Hence, I lost my yahoo account.I don't see protecting your identity as an issue of integrity either. I see telling the truth about your birthday as an issue of integrity. Actually I think your perspective is a good one. You weighed the benefit of your Yahoo account against the privacy of your information and decided that privacy was more important. I am just encouraging you to similarly weigh the value of you honesty to also be more important than the benefit of your Yahoo account.
I don't think it's wrong to give a false number. They don't need my account information.It is wrong to lie (purposefully give false information) regardless of what someone else "needs".
Matt, you are basically justifying this lack of integrity with temptation #4 from that article.
I do not believe that there is any wrong intent in this. And are you saying that lying is always wrong? What about 'The Hiding Place?'The wrong intent is to purposefully tell something about yourself that is NOT true. Yes, I think lying is always wrong. And I have heard another story about a man who hid Jews during WWII, and when the soldiers came to his door they told him that they had heard that there were a couple Jews living in his house. He told them that there were actually 20. They hit him for being a smart alec and didn't bother to search his house for the remainder of the war.
"...why participate in an activity just to give false information. That puts you in a place where you are lying" True it doesI appreciate that at least we agree that it's lying.
The only way to change this is to actively resist these encroachments.Your dishonesty is clearly NOT the ONLY way to change corporations attempts to get private information. You could write your congressperson to make laws that prohibit them asking for unnecessary information. You could create your own fantasy football league and not require people to give that information (free market competition). You could write a letter to Yahoo protesting their policy. There are a lot of other things that you can do. Lying is not your best option.
I needed to protect my family from the dangers of Identity theft.If you really believe that giving your information is endangering your family, then don't give it. Your family's safety is more important than playing fantasy football. You're just trying to have your cake and eat it too :)
So how about those Bears?!?
Matt, you're a sinner, Mark, so are you. Hey, so am I! Thank God we are redeemed by God's grace and mercy through Jesus Christ...I agree with you Travis, we were all sinners and are only redeemed thanks to God.
So really if you were in that scenario you would have told the truth?
So really if you were in that scenario you would have told the truth?
To do any other would be to not trust God and to sin.
You may think this leads to moral relativity...Yes I do. Lying is wrong, and we shouldn't do something wrong just to keep someone else from doing something wrong.
They DONT think you are crazy and find the Jews and then arrest you as well as your family and put you all to death.I'll trust God to handle it. He tells me in His Word to be honest. I'll be honest. Either God will save us or He won't (just like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego told Nebby). I trust that He has a plan, and I'm going to follow God's commands and trust the outcome to Him.
Vir est cado eatenus.
WOW guys...just WOW; I can't believe this discussion is still going on. Matt, you're a sinner, Mark, so are you. Hey, so am I! Thank God we are redeemed by God's grace and mercy through Jesus Christ...
So how about those Bears?!?
7 words
GO RAVENS!!!
GO TITANS!!!!
AND GO SAINTS!!!
Baltimore Ravens
Tennessee Titans
New Orleans Sants
football
cause the pats barely beat the bills
Sorry Prof. I know we are off topic, but when someone brings up football I gotta speakIt's understandable, considering that this discussion actually started as an "off topic" conversation in a thread that was actually supposed to be about football. So this is actually kinda funny to me.
They DONT think you are crazy and find the Jews and then arrest you as well as your family and put you all to death.I'll trust God to handle it. He tells me in His Word to be honest. I'll be honest. Either God will save us or He won't (just like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego told Nebby). I trust that He has a plan, and I'm going to follow God's commands and trust the outcome to Him.
You are still using the argument that it is ok to do something wrong to stop someone else from doing something wrong. Do you see that?
If you saw someone with a Gun and you believed that they were going to use it to Kill someone else, would you try to take the Gun?
I can see where you would THINK that, but what I am saying is that to lie to protect someone else from mortal Danger is not a sin, but a virtue. So I am not doing something wrong to stop someone else from doing something wrong.I think we understand each other then. Fair enough, but you should realize that your position does lead to moral relativism (maybe not in you, but in other people).
When it is y our life to give away, you can trust God all you want, but when otherrs depend upon you, I believe the standing order is to protect those who cannot protect themselves.I disagree with this. I think that we should trust God for our own lives and for the lives of others. When the entire army of Israel was depending on Gideon to lead them to victory, did he trust in God's plan, or did he trust in what seemed smart to him. Gideon sent thousands of soldiers away to fight with only 300 against an overwhelming force. Was he throwing their lives away and doing something wrong? Of course not, he was trusting their lives in God's hands. "But God told him to do that" you might say. "And God told us to NOT lie" I reply.
With putting false information in a form like this, are you really lying to someone, or are you simply lying to the machineThis was also discussed in the thread on this topic from long ago. I was going to link to it, but it was lost in the purge. The conclusion of people who knew about this sort of stuff (not me) was that there are people who actually do see this information.
Prof...it seems like you believe in a predestination Christianity. Do you believe that?Actually I am a big proponent of free will, but I'll take it as a compliment that I haven't gotten into these debates enough that you had to ask :)
If they ask you if you are hiding Jews, and you say, I am not hiding Jews in my house, because they're aren't in your house, they are underground or something. I believe that's the same as lying.I know I'll probably get blasted for this, but I must admit that I would not have a problem with saying something that was true and allowing the dumb soldiers to jump to the wrong conclusion. I wouldn't lie, but I wouldn't correct their ignorance either.
I know I'll probably get blasted for this, but I must admit that I would not have a problem with saying something that was true and allowing the dumb soldiers to jump to the wrong conclusion. I wouldn't lie, but I wouldn't correct their ignorance either.
I've said this before on the many "is lying a sin" threads and I'll say it again. All of those verses cover false witnesses and "liars" or "lying tongues" or something to that end. Given that Rahab, (by your definitions a "liar") is praised for her actions, I find the best way to reconcile the scriptures is that false witness is always bad (lying to harm or for self-benefit) and habitual lying is always bad (those who are "liars" or have a "lying tongue"), but not every lie is a sin to tell.
If you are not lying for gain or for hurt (false witness), or making lies your modus operandi (being a liar/having a lying tongue), lying is sometimes virtuous on a case-to-case basis.
When it is y our life to give away, you can trust God all you want, but when otherrs depend upon you, I believe the standing order is to protect those who cannot protect themselves.I disagree with this. I think that we should trust God for our own lives and for the lives of others. When the entire army of Israel was depending on Gideon to lead them to victory, did he trust in God's plan, or did he trust in what seemed smart to him. Gideon sent thousands of soldiers away to fight with only 300 against an overwhelming force. Was he throwing their lives away and doing something wrong? Of course not, he was trusting their lives in God's hands. "But God told him to do that" you might say. "And God told us to NOT lie" I reply.
Just as the commandment "Thou shall not Murder" has been misinterpreted into "Thou shall not kill (for any reason whatsoever)" I believe the prohibitions against lying have been taken to an extreme that God never meant for them to go.This is exactly where the moral relativism leads. First one decides that lying isn't always wrong. Then one decides that killing isn't always wrong. Then one decides that sex outside of marriage isn't always wrong. And it just keeps going. Eventually everyone ends up with their own personal moral code and everyone does what ought not to be done (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:28-32&version=NIV) and approves of others who do the same.
And did Gideon not "mislead" or act diceptively with the amalkite ( I beleive it was the amaliktes) army? when he led them to believe that he had more than 300 soldiers? If God sanctions deception when the army of Israel is acting against an enemy, why can he not sanction deception for his believers agains those who are clearly acting with evil intent to harm others? (i.e. the Nazi's)I brought up Gideon as an example of trusting other's lives in God's hands, which you said we shouldn't do. Instead of responding to that you are changing the subject by pointing out that Gideon tricked the enemy into thinking there were more soldiers in his command than there were. First of all, I'd like you to acknowledge that we should trust other's lives in God's hands. And secondly, I already agreed that it is ok to say or do something that is not a lie and allow them to be confused. Gideon just lit some torches and played some trumpets. The story clearly indicates that it was God who confused the enemy soldiers.
There was an old man sitting on his porch watching the rain fall. Pretty soon the water was coming over the porch and into the house.
The old man was still sitting there when a rescue boat came and the people on board said, "You can't stay here you have to come with us."
The old man replied, "No, God will save me." So the boat left. A little while later the water was up to the second floor, and another rescue boat came, and again they told the old man he had to come with them.
The old man again replied, "God will save me." So the boat left him again.
An hour later the water was up to the roof and a third rescue boat approached the old man, and tried to get him to come with them.
Again the old man refused to leave stating that, "God will grant a miracle & save me." So the boat left him again.
Soon after, the man drowns and goes to heaven, and when he sees God he asks him, "Why didn't you save me? I thought you would grant me a miracle and you have let me down."
God replied, "I tried...I sent three boats after you."
Then one decides that killing isn't always wrong.
Then one decides that killing isn't always wrong.
I should point out that God sent His people to war and in some cases called for the complete eradication of some cultures before Matt started protecting his online privacy.
And I am throwing my hat in with the others who say that a lie by omission is the same brand of so-called "moral relativism". If you're going to claim you can tell a technical truth without actually being honest, you validate the concept of telling a technical falsehood without actually being dishonest.
Killing isn't war (hence the wars God sanctioned). Murder is wrong. Killing is a poor translation of the passage.
I have discovered that about everybody has considered what I did a "lie." I don't see it that way but sometimes perception is reality. I must backtrack on my earlier thoughts. I still do not give out my birthdate and other personal info, but I have come to realize that I may have to sacrifice some things for that choice.I appreciate your servants heart in being willing to make personal sacrifices to maintain integrity, even when it is an issue that could be compared to meat sacrificed to idols (not a lie in your perception, but a lie in other's perception). I would have respected you whatever you decided, but I'm glad you ended up on this side of the issue.
James 2:24-25I should have responded to this earlier. James is saying that Rahab was considered righteous (even though she was a prostitute) because she did the right thing with the spies. She gave the spies a place to stay, and then she helped them get out of the city a different way than they came in (through the window in the wall). This passage does NOT commend her for lying to the soldiers of Jericho.
You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
Yes, and I understand that... but it's also a command to not murder. Yet we go into war. Are all wars bad? Was Ehud wrong?
Like I said, I think it all comes down to your intent.
Murder is different from killing. Death penalty and wars are not murder by biblical standards.
First of all, I'd like you to acknowledge that we should trust other's lives in God's hands. And secondly, I already agreed that it is ok to say or do something that is not a lie and allow them to be confused. Gideon just lit some torches and played some trumpets. The story clearly indicates that it was God who confused the enemy soldiers.
we have several examples of God telling and approving of people lying to othersI think you may have missed my most recent post above where I demonstrated that the Bible does not "approve" of Rahab's lying itself. I think you will find that this is also the case with all the other people you listed. God approved of them overall, but that doesn't mean that everything they did was good, and I don't think there are any verses that directly demonstrate that a lie (specifically referring to telling something that is NOT true) was a good thing.
And the very act that Rabab gets praise for in Hebrews, (action based in Faith.. remeber she is listed in the Role Call of Faith in God i.e. she is an Honor student in TRUSTING God) That very act required that she lie to those who were searching for the spies. That by default proves that LYING can be an act of Faith in God.
I think you may have missed my most recent post above where I demonstrated that the Bible does not "approve" of Rahab's lying itself.
God approved of them overall, but that doesn't mean that everything they did was good, and I don't think there are any verses that directly demonstrate that a lie (specifically referring to telling something that is NOT true) was a good thing.
My contention is that not all lies are bad. My proof is that God has sacntion lies and dishonest behavior in thebible on multiple occasions including Rahab, Gideon, Samule, David, Abraham, I would argue even Paul the Apostle when he circumcized Timothy was acting dishoneslty.
the very action that she was commended for INCLUDED decieving those looking for the spies.Where in the Bible does it say that Rahab was commended for lying to the soldiers. I think it only commends her for taking in the spies and then helping them escape out the window.
You are splitting hairs...My contention is that not all lies are bad. My proof is that God has sacntion lies and dishonest behavior in the bible on multiple occasionsI think I understand our fundamental difference in perspective now. You take a broad definition of "lying", and then conclude that it must not always be wrong because God supports some things that people say and do which trick people. I take a narrow definition of "lying", and then conclude that it is always wrong because God never supports specifically telling someone something that isn't true.
God killed Sapphira for speaking a specific untruth, but he killed Ananias just for bringing in the money.This is actually a good example of how the Bible seems to take a more narrow definition of lying. Ananias did something that caused people to think something that was untrue (that he donated all the money from his sale to the Lord). However, he didn't actually come out and "say" anything that wasn't true. Therefore, Peter says that Ananias did NOT lie to the men. Unfortunately, Ananias must have been trying to fool God because Peter said that he WAS lying to God. And that is why he was killed.
Not to mention that there isn't even a direct command not to lie. Just not to bear false witness.Actually, there were several verses listed earlier in this discussion. I'll quote them below. I particularly point to the one in Proverbs 6 where God lists a lying tongue separate from a false witness, which directly contradicts your statement.
Prov 19:5
5 ...he who tells lies will not escape.
Rev 21:8
8 "But for...all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
Prov 6:16-19
16 There are six things which the LORD hates...a lying tongue, And...A false witness who utters lies...
This is actually a good example of how the Bible seems to take a more narrow definition of lying.
Ananias did something that caused people to think something that was untrue.
However, he didn't actually come out and "say" anything that wasn't true. Therefore, Peter says that Ananias did NOT lie to the men. Unfortunately, Ananias must have been trying to fool God because Peter said that he WAS lying to God.
I particularly point to the one in Proverbs 6 where God lists a lying tongue separate from a false witness, which directly contradicts your statement.
Yes, and I understand that... but it's also a command to not murder. Yet we go into war. Are all wars bad? Was Ehud wrong?
Like I said, I think it all comes down to your intent.
What about America's spies in other nations? They lie every day to stay secret, and they are protecting our nation by getting us information.
I hope they have a good attorney on judgement day.
The strange thing about your bringing this up is that it actually contradicts YOUR position that false witness is narrowly defined as spoken, deliberate falsehoods.I understand your confusion, and apologize for not being clearer. I think you were defining "false witness" as just saying something that was not true, and you were defining "lying" to include that but also to include doing or saying something that leads someone to a false conclusion.
False Witness - Intentionally lyingI would go with this actually.or leaving out informationin a situation where you are called to render testimony for or against an individual
Lying -any dishonest act or ommission that gives a false impression about a situationsaying something that isn't true
I've already responded to those, on this thread and the last time we had this discussion. I remain thoroughly unconvinced that those verses constitute a command never to lie.Here :)
Life lockYou know, why dont you give out a fake one you can remember like 1-1-11 or 2-2-22 or something like that. for you it could be 7-7-77 since 7 was your jersey number.This discussion has been done before, but I continue to point out that it is not good to lie about information like this. Take your choice between giving your real birthday and being able to forget your password, or don't give your birthday and don't forget you password. But don't lie about something just so that you can access a yahoo account for a pretend football league. Your integrity should be worth more than that.
I choose not to give real information about myself over the internet. Between hackers and identity thieves, I choose to keep as little of my information on the "grid" as possible. All these accounts want your personal info...I refuse to give it, but the boxes still have to be filled out. I don't see it as an integrity issue trying to keep my identity as safe as possible.
That is relay cool.I do not believe that there is any wrong intent in this. And are you saying that lying is always wrong? What about 'The Hiding Place?'The wrong intent is to purposefully tell something about yourself that is NOT true. Yes, I think lying is always wrong. And I have heard another story about a man who hid Jews during WWII, and when the soldiers came to his door they told him that they had heard that there were a couple Jews living in his house. He told them that there were actually 20. They hit him for being a smart alec and didn't bother to search his house for the remainder of the war.
I think you were defining "false witness" as just saying something that was not true, and you were defining "lying" to include that but also to include doing or saying something that leads someone to a false conclusion.
I was defining "false witness" to be specifically lying in court or the principal's office or a similar situation where you are called as a witness to something. I was defining "lying" to be saying something that was not true.
Naturally, I wouldn't lie to a fellow confessor. Anything else?I've already responded to those, on this thread and the last time we had this discussion. I remain thoroughly unconvinced that those verses constitute a command never to lie.Here :)
Leviticus 19:11 "You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another.
Schaef, you seem to be saying that "false witness" and "lying" are synonymous.
So then are you saying that "do not bear false witness" doesn't always mean "do not bear false witness"? Are you really saying that one of the 10 commandments is sometimes wrong?
Polarius, you seem to be saying that lying to Christians is wrong, but lying to non-Christians is OK. Am I really reading that right?Absolutely. The right hand can't lie to the left and expect the body to function, but one body can lie to a different, hostile body to preserve its well being.
Back to the Nazi trying to find the Jews in your house then. If the Nazi said he was a Christian, would you tell him if the Jews were in there or not? Another example. You and another Christian are talking. The Christian has just asked if you could go to his house on a certain date. You just don't want to go but he seems really excited about you coming and you had promised him before this. Would you lie and say you had other arrangements?And just because we are enemies with the world doesn't mean we should break our own commandments. Do you believe the ten commandments only apply to Jews?QuotePolarius, you seem to be saying that lying to Christians is wrong, but lying to non-Christians is OK. Am I really reading that right?Back to the Nazi trying to find the Jews in your house then. If the Nazi said he was a Christian, would you tell him if the Jews were in there or not?
Absolutely. The right hand can't lie to the left and expect the body to function, but one body can lie to a different, hostile body to preserve its well being.
There are only two cities, and their inhabitants are enemies of one another. Lying to the enemy for the benefit of the Kingdom is a good thing.
Matt, you seem to be saying now that you think lying about your daughter being in church is WRONG even if it meant her death, which seems to go against the rest of you argument. What if it weren't church? What if you were called to testify whether you saw her at the library (assuming that visiting libraries was punishable by death)?
I would say that "false witness" is similar to what Matt said, "Intentionally lying in a situation where you are called to render testimony for or against an individual". So if someone asks me whether Schaef has any children, and I say "no", then that would be false witness. I would say lying is "saying something that isn't true". So if a girl asks me if I like her short haircut better than her previous long haircut, and I say "yes", then that would be a lie. But it would not be "false witness". I am only stating my opinion or personal feeling, not giving testimony about someone else. So in my mind, "false witness" is a specific type of "lying", but not all lies would specifically be "false witness". Does that make things more clear?Schaef, you seem to be saying that "false witness" and "lying" are synonymous.uummmm.... yeah. In what way are they not?
I used murder as an exampleI'm fine talking about this in a separate thread, but I don't want to confuse this one by talking about 2 controversial topics.
your stance on lying can be narrow and hair-splittingI don't think it's hair splitting to simply define lying as saying something that is not true. That seems pretty basic to me.
OK. Well I'm glad to understand your position, but I think we'll have to just agree to disagree on this one :)QuotePolarius, you seem to be saying that lying to Christians is wrong, but lying to non-Christians is OK. Am I really reading that right?Absolutely.
False Witness - Intentionally lying or leaving out information in a situation where you are called to render testimony for or against an individual
This one is always intentional, always harmful and always evil
I would probably choose to not say anything and just simply rot in jail for contempt of court.This is exactly what I was saying earlier though. You are contradicting your own definition for false witness. You originally said that bearing "false witness" was always wrong. And you defined it as saying anything untrue, or even leaving out information you were called to give. Yet now you say that you would omit information about you daughter and the library because you personally decided it was an unjust law. This is where the moral relativity is creeping into even your own thinking. Do you not see it?
answer me this: Is your daughter lying when she says her sister fell down the stairs (when in reality she PUSHED her sister down the stairs?)I would say that she technically is not lying. I can also tell you from experience that I would ask more specific questions as I investigated the situation so that she would be forced to either tell me the truth, or a lie. I would also cross-check her story with her sisters, take into account both of their historical behavior patterns, and any other evidence from the stairs that could be relevant. Then I would distribute punishment as warranted.
Why is Annanias punished for leaving out the part of the money that they kept back?Peter says that Annanias wrongdoing was "lying to God". The story doesn't specifically tell us how he actually did that. Perhaps, he said a prayer that included something like "Holy Father, I give you this day all the money from the sale of my field." I don't really know. But whatever he said to God wasn't true, and God wasn't happy about it.
So in my mind, "false witness" is a specific type of "lying", but not all lies would specifically be "false witness". Does that make things more clear?
I'm fine talking about this in a separate thread, but I don't want to confuse this one by talking about 2 controversial topics.
I don't think it's hair splitting to simply define lying as saying something that is not true. That seems pretty basic to me.
This is where the moral relativity is creeping into even your own thinking. Do you not see it?
I can also tell you from experience that I would ask more specific questions as I investigated the situation so that she would be forced to either tell me the truth, or a lie.
The story doesn't specifically tell us how he actually did that.
Back to the Nazi trying to find the Jews in your house then. If the Nazi said he was a Christian, would you tell him if the Jews were in there or not?No. I would not believe him to be a true confessor if he were working for the SS to capture God's children.
You and another Christian are talking. The Christian has just asked if you could go to his house on a certain date. You just don't want to go but he seems really excited about you coming and you had promised him before this. Would you lie and say you had other arrangements?That's immoral even by much looser standards than I employ. I've said over and over again that lying for personal gain is never ok.
And just because we are enemies with the world doesn't mean we should break our own commandments. Do you believe the ten commandments only apply to Jews?This is non-sequitur. The ten commandments say nothing about lying in general. I've already explained how lying is not always breaking with God's will, and is sometimes a virtue. Bringing this point up serves no purpose.
Not really, no, because pretty much every instance of deliberate fabrication is a rendering of testimony.If I say that I like a haircut that I really don't like, then that is not bearing false witness against anyone, but it is lying. But considering that I think both are wrong it really doesn't matter to me personally. I am only trying to make the distinction for people who think that one is always wrong and the other is only sometimes wrong.
It's hair-splitting when you are still treating people with a dishonest heart without vocalizing a fabrication.So you're saying that I'm wrong for saying it's sometimes appropriate to allow people to jump to the wrong conclusions. While at that same time you are saying that it's sometimes appropriate to allow people to jump to the wrong conclusions, and on top of that, it's sometimes appropriate to flat out lie to them. That doesn't make sense.
Is it really your position that God commanded Moses that we should not make specific vocal fabrications, rather than people of honest hearts?Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.(Luke 6:45) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:45&version=NIV) You are the one arguing that it is sometimes appropriate to lie. If the mouth is speaking lies, then the person doesn't have an honest heart.
If I say that I like a haircut that I really don't like, then that is not bearing false witness against anyone, but it is lying.
So you're saying that I'm wrong for saying it's sometimes appropriate to allow people to jump to the wrong conclusions.
While at that same time you are saying that it's sometimes appropriate to allow people to jump to the wrong conclusions, and on top of that, it's sometimes appropriate to flat out lie to them. That doesn't make sense.
You are the one arguing that it is sometimes appropriate to lie. If the mouth is speaking lies, then the person doesn't have an honest heart.
I'm saying you are inconsistent in your philosophy, and criticizing people for a so-called "moral relativism" that also comes out in your own way of thinking.I admitted a long time ago that the difference between the arguments here is that one side parses when lying is wrong, and the other side parses what classifies as lying. I think the second is more logical because it is objective and fits with scripture. Saying something that isn't true is often condemned and never praised in scripture. Saying or doing something that leads people to jump to the wrong conclusion is sometimes praised in scripture. Therefore, I think it makes sense to recognize that difference, and use it to reach a conclusion about what our actions should be.
Paul said that the law does not exist to make men righteous, but to present a standard to show us that it is our hearts first that need mending, and righteous actions will flow from that.I agree that the main purpose of the law is to show us our need for God because we all fall short of keeping it. I also agree that Jesus taught us that it is not enough to just obey the law on the outside, but that our heart attitudes are also important. But Jesus was adding there, not taking away. Jesus still said adultery was wrong, and He added that lust was wrong too. Similarly lying is still wrong, and having a deceitful heart that is trying to hurt people is wrong too. Just because your heart attitude is important doesn't get you off the hook of the original law still applying.
I admitted a long time ago that the difference between the arguments here is that one side parses when lying is wrong, and the other side parses what classifies as lying. I think the second is more logical because it is objective and fits with scripture.
Saying something that isn't true is often condemned and never praised in scripture.
But Jesus was adding there, not taking away.
This makes the application in fact SUBjectiveLet me explain what I mean by objective. I mean that you can write the rule in a way that a computer can understand it. In this case, the program would look somewhat like this:
To kill people...You just keep trying :)
I'm beginning to have a real problem with this fixation on assigning ill motives to every aspect of an opposing viewpoint...as it would never even occur to me to think these things of you.I do not think that your (or Matt's, or anyone else's) motivation for your interpretation of lying is evil. However, I do think that the line of reasoning that you are espousing when taken to its logical conclusion can lead to dangerous waters for people. You guys have been able to navigate your subjective approach to scripture in a way that stays within orthodox Christianity. But there are a lot of other people who will not end up in that place.
Let me explain what I mean by objective. I mean that you can write the rule in a way that a computer can understand it.
You just keep trying :)
I do not think that your (or Matt's, or anyone else's) motivation for your interpretation of lying is evil.
You guys have been able to navigate your subjective approach to scripture in a way that stays within orthodox Christianity.
I just think it is dangerous to tell someone that Biblical commands such as "you shall not lie to one another" don't really apply all the time.
In that case, mine is also objective. You just consider mine subjective because you apply fewer conditional statements.OK, then help me see it. How would you write the computer program?
You think that we're trying to supplant God's law with ours...No I don't think that YOU are trying to do that. I just think that your line of reasoning can and will be used by OTHER people to do that.
But my point is that God has applied it in every circumstance as long as you define lying to mean "saying something that isn't true". So why not use that definition and have a consistent rule, instead of making up a broader definition and an inconsistent rule?QuoteI just think it is dangerous to tell someone that Biblical commands such as "you shall not lie to one another" don't really apply all the time.That's the world that we live in! It doesn't! God Himself has not applied..."don't lie" in every circumstance!
In your infamous and well-recycled hiding-the-Jews scenario, what you are faced with is a dilemma.To me it is not a dilemma. I don't lie to the Nazi's (by telling them something that is NOT true), and I also don't help them kill the Jews. Why would I want to redefine words to be so broad that situations like them force me to choose something wrong either way? You're not making your side sound very appealing to me.
OK, then help me see it. How would you write the computer program?
No I don't think that YOU are trying to do that. I just think that your line of reasoning can and will be used by OTHER people to do that.
But my point is that God has applied it in every circumstance as long as you define lying to mean "saying something that isn't true". So why not use that definition and have a consistent rule, instead of making up a broader definition and an inconsistent rule?
I don't lie to the Nazi's (by telling them something that is NOT true), and I also don't help them kill the Jews.
Why would I want to redefine words to be so broad that situations like them force me to choose something wrong either way? You're not making your side sound very appealing to me.
However, my heart knows what is right and wrong and I trust my actions to flow from my faith.
Jeremiah 17:9 (New Living Translation)
9 “The human heart is the most deceitful of all things,
and desperately wicked.
Who really knows how bad it is?
Should we really rely on our hearts (I'm sure you meant the leading of the Holy Sprit instead of your own heart)?
Should we really rely on our hearts (I'm sure you meant the leading of the Holy Sprit instead of your own heart)?
If you know what I meant then there's really no need to ask the question, is there?
Let me explain what I mean by objective. I mean that you can write the rule in a way that a computer can understand it.In that case, mine is also objective. You just consider mine subjective because you apply fewer conditional statements.
I cannot foresee every circumstance. However, my heart knows what is right and wrong and I trust my actions to flow from my faith. And let me stop you right there, no, that's not subjective.First of all, you claimed that you could write a computer program (with more conditions) that would be objective. Now you say that you can't, and that you just judge right and wrong based on your heart. You may say that isn't subjective, but it sure will look like it to other people. And those people will use that as a license to create their own private morality based on whatever their heart tells them.
I could also say that your philosophy works for you but could lead another person down a dangerous path.You are right that my philosophy could lead someone down a path to legalism. But if I have to choose between encouraging someone to live too close to what scripture seems to say, or too far from what scripture seems to say, I think the former is a better way to go.
Well, I said that my actions flow from my faith, not from temporal, irrational emotional outbursts.
First of all, you claimed that you could write a computer program (with more conditions) that would be objective. Now you say that you can't,
And those people will use that as a license to create their own private morality based on whatever their heart tells them.
You are right that my philosophy could lead someone down a path to legalism.
But if I have to choose between encouraging someone to live too close to what scripture seems to say, or too far from what scripture seems to say, I think the former is a better way to go.
Am I the only one that finds this statement humorous? ::)
Anybody else want a shot? So cheap they're practically free today! Come on down!
I was making a joke, but you instead proved it to be true.
I used the rolleyes to make sure it was construed as a joke. Perhaps a smiley would have worked better for you.
However, your ensuing rant only proves that you are taking anything said to you as a personal attack. That is what makes your response irrational.
Is this really the first time that I have interjected a thread that was having a heated discussion with an attempt at lighthearted humor?
If you seriously cannot see how your last few posts on this thread have all included irrational comments, then I fear you may never see what hinders you.
There's no perhaps about it. Rolling one's eyes is a sign of condescension, contempt, boredom, or exasperation. I have no logical grounds to assume that a sign of condescension or contempt in response to something I said should be construed as being of humorous intent.
The two reasons this is wrong...
No, and neither is it the first time that someone has taken a discussion in which I happen to be involved and use it as a referendum on my character. So arguing from past experience gains you no ground.
You are welcome to provide me with something I said which has no logical support. My posts are my evidence and I am happy to defend them, especially if it means they are being read with consideration rather than casual dismissal.
Wrong again. Rolling eyes are also used when someone is being mischievous.
It is a rant because you your initial presuppostion was wrong.
So you can argue that it was personal from past experience, but I cannot argue that it was a joke from past experience.... and that's not irrational?
Your idea of "logical support" is my idea of "rant" since you were wrong about my intentions.
::) ??? :scratch: :doh:
Wrong again. Rolling eyes are also used when someone is being mischievous.
I'm not sure where you picked up that interpretation but I have never used it in that situation - particularly face to face - nor do I know anybody who has.
You've never seen the little mischievous boy, who is caught doing something he wasn't supposed to, standing with his hands behind his back and rolling his eyes (sometimes accompanied by a soft whistling)?
If Rolling Eyes are only negative and condescending, then why in the world do we even have them on a Christian message board? Wouldn't that fall under the same category as having a smiley giving the finger?
Every post where you told me what I meant by my original joke was irrational.
Anybody else want a shot? So cheap they're practically free today! Come on down!
No, see, you inserted a sarcastic remark and followed it up with a rolleyes smiley. ...... So, how much longer is this thread going to be about me and my character before we're allowed to go back to the issue?
There's no perhaps about it. Rolling one's eyes is a sign of condescension, contempt, boredom, or exasperation.
OK, well I really do want to understand your perspective on this. So if you can't write the program here on this forum, then please write it somewhere else and PM it to me. You claim that you can have an objective application of God's commands regarding lying. I am claiming that you can't. I would appreciate it if you could provide the evidence that you are claiming in some form or another.First of all, you claimed that you could write a computer program (with more conditions) that would be objective. Now you say that you can't,I didn't say that I could not. I only said that this forum was not appropriate to present you with such a program right here and now, leaving the possibility that it would be incomplete and/or fail to anticipate a future condition. That does not mean those conditions do not exist or the program is impossible.
This was a rational response with no assumptions of my intentions?
This is not telling me what I meant or intended?
If there is "no perhaps," then there was no other interpretation, in spite of my saying that there was.
If you are willing to admit that you have misinterpreted me
However, it still saddens me that you would assume I meant you malcontent.
You claim that you can have an objective application of God's commands regarding lying. I am claiming that you can't.
The first is that I told you what you said. That is simply a statement of fact. You made an ironic remark and a rolleyes. That is beyond dispute. So no, it is not "telling you what you meant".
...and the actual meaning of the smiley you used, ...
If you are willing to admit that you have misinterpreted me
You provided a context to your remark which, as I stated previously, added that impression to a low-context environment, ...
Ironic =/= sarcastic You said sarcastic in your original post, which is inherently negative. Irony is not necessarily negative.
If the "actual" meaning of tht smiley is condescending and rude, then it needs to be removed as an option.
I think that this is the essence of the misunderstanding. Frankly, people like Colin have created a negative atmosphere on these boards, such that the first assumption is that people are being sarcastic.
...not because my first assumption is that everyone is out to get me.Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean that everyone isn't still out to get you. (that statement is a joke)
First of all, that does look all that difficult :)You claim that you can have an objective application of God's commands regarding lying. I am claiming that you can't.It's not really that difficult....IF $action(untruthful) && !($transgression(truthful) > $transgression(untruthful)) && !($harm(truthful) || $threat(truthful) > $harm(untruthful) || $threat(untruthful) THEN $action(untruthful) = $action(wrong)
This alone makes it more subjective.
Who gets to decide whether the threat is greater if you are truthful or untruthful? Who gets to decide which will cause more harm in the long run (which actually is impossible to even know)? How are these relative values assigned?
Jesus himself took that approach before Herod when he was asked if he was the Christ. His answer was silence so if you are going to hit me with being untruthful in that situation, then you have to apply that label to our Lord as well.I don't think Jesus was lying at all, because I define lying as saying something that isn't true. So that passage isn't a problem for me. However, it does seem to go against the definition you previously stated.
False Witness - Intentionally lying or leaving out information in a situation where you are called to render testimony for or against an individualSo now you have said twice that you would "leave out information" (by refusing to answer), and also bring up the point that Jesus did that as well in His own trial. Therefore, considering that Jesus never did something harmful and evil, your definition for "false witness" must be incorrect. Which is why I think my definition is a better way to go. What do you think?
This one is always intentional, always harmful and always evil
the law and God's law are not comparable. You should really know that.
Someone who cares more about their supposed Integrity that they would not lie to the Nazi's who he knows would kill the jews he promised to protect has their moral compass screwed up.I should clarify here that I am trying to obey God because I love God, not to protect my personal integrity.
Yes But if you know what will happen and you do not do what you can to stop it, then you are complicit in that action.I would do what I could to stop it. I would try to hide them so that they couldn't be found. I would try to fight the soldiers if they did find them. I would do what I can. But lying is not something that I "can" do, because I don't want to disobey God.
You dont think that God would hold you guilty if you allowed the Jews that you were protecting to die by the Nazi's because you refused to decieve the Nazi's who clearly meant to harm them?No I don't think God would hold me guilty for doing everything I could (without disobey His own commands) to protect their lives.
Or with the Jews that die because of you.I would obviously warn any Jews who wanted to hide in my house that I would try to protect them, but that I would not lie for them. They would choose whether they wanted to stay there under those conditions.
I should clarify here that I am trying to obey God because I love God, not to protect my personal integrity.
I would try to fight the soldiers if they did find them. I would do what I can. But lying is not something that I "can" do, because I don't want to disobey God.
I would obviously warn any Jews who wanted to hide in my house that I would try to protect them, but that I would not lie for them. They would choose whether they wanted to stay there under those conditions.
And getting into a fight with someone doesn't count?I don't know of anywhere in the Bible that is says that I can't punch a soldier in the nose to keep him from unjustly hurting someone.
it's not obvious to meWell now it is because I told you, and as we've already learned, I don't say things that aren't true. Because that would be lying.
I don't know of anywhere in the Bible that is says that I can't punch a soldier in the nose to keep him from unjustly hurting someone.
Well now it is because I told you
19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
16b Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
If someone strikes your cheek, offer him the other one.Clearly doesn't apply in this situation, since I am not defending my pride at being struck.
This is actually another verse that I believe supports my position. It seems to say that we should stay innocent by not sinning (ie. lying by saying something that isn't true), but also be shrewd (ie. refusing to answer, or allowing the soldiers to jump to wrong conclusions).Quote16b Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
Clearly doesn't apply in this situation, since I am not defending my pride at being struck.
This is actually another verse that I believe supports my position. It seems to say that we should stay innocent by not sinning (ie. lying by saying something that isn't true), but also be shrewd (ie. refusing to answer, or allowing the soldiers to jump to wrong conclusions).
So you're saying it's okay to defend other people with violence but not yourself?You and your rabbit trails :)
I bear Mark no ill will, I am just tired of this argument...I also know that if i convert to Judaism, I am not hiding in Marks house :o ;)No ill will here either Matt, and I'm a bit tired of the argument as well. And you many not want to hide in my house, but you're welcome to come visit sometime :)
You and your rabbit trails :)
cool, schaef's title is "Tyrannical Overlord" now that is cool. I just noticed that he changed it lolYeah, I noticed that a while back and smiled. I like how Schaef usually has such a good humor about his rep here on the boards :)
I try to laugh whenever possible.
Double-secret probation banned.That is really funny :)