Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207913 | ||
Steve I agree that God's laws are perfect and absolute. But what about Rahab? What are we to think? What if laying down your life for the person someone else is trying to kill is not an option being laid out on the table, like Jonathon's lie of ommission in letting David go free when Saul was trying to kill him? Question; according to scripture was Rahab's motive to save her own hide? Yes, and to recognize God. Question was Jonathon's motive to save his own hide? No, it was to save David's and recognize David's right to be the future king of Israel. Both had their actions approved by God and that included lying, although the scriptures do not say that God condoned that particular part. But since there was never going to be plan B, then God ordained that they would lie, whether that was a sin or not, to save some lives that were central to God's plan that they remain alive; all of Israel through the actions of 4 spies to take Jericho, and David to be king of Israel. I am not saying God condones sin, but He used it to His own ends. That makes me think hard about Bathsheba, there was never going to be a plan B, David's adulterous relationship was always going to result in Solomon, of the direct lineage of Jesus. God chose not to do it any other way, and that involved two sins, murder and adultery. Man is still responible for his sins, whatever they are, they will be punished, but sin is also part of God's plan. Doc turned me on to a whole bunch of posts on this, but I can't find them right now. I think if you type "Secondary Causes" or "Causes as Secondary Causes" or some such you will be able to find it. Interesting stuff. This also makes me think about the woman who got caught by the Germans for hiding Anne Frank. If I have the story right, she never spent even one day suffering, or being punished in any way for hiding Anne Frank by the Germans. Her motive was not self protection in lying by ommission and illegaly hiding Jews. Someone correct me if I am wrong. I would say to you that you are right God's laws are never limited and they are absolute. But by the same token whatever He decides will happen are righteous and holy descisions that may include all kinds of things that His laws state are not righteous and holy - He never contradicts the law because He is perfect. Question; why would you assume that God would be pleased that you stood on Biblical principle and refused to lie as if that were a better good than saving a life just to save a life by lying? Which one is worse lying, or being complicit in murder? That reminds me of a certain group of people that believed you could not do anything on the Sabbath because it was one of the Ten Commandment sins, as is lying, but Jesus said to them, "which one of you would not break the law to save the life of his live stock if it fell down the well?" to paraphrase that is the jist of what He meant. I think that says it all right there. I think we should be willing to consider that there are higher goods and acts than law keeping and preservation of somebody elses life might be one of them. Luke 14:5 And He said to them, "Which one of you will have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?" blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
2 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | humbledbyhisgrace | 207933 | ||
Bowler, “Both had their actions approved by God and that included lying, although the scriptures do not say that God condoned that particular part. But since there was never going to be plan B, then God ordained that they would lie, whether that was a sin or not, to save some lives that were central to God's plan…” Really?! You seek to justify lying but your reasoning falls short. Why? Because it contradicts God’s laws! God ordained that we not lie! How could you possibly even think that a holy God would ordain the very thing His law prohibits? I am amazed at such a statement! Surely there is a great need for us to be mindful of who He is. Are you really advocating that God’s plan was dependent on a lie? Wow! You said “I am not saying God condones sin”. Well, you did this very thing when you say He ordained it. You said “I would say to you that you are right God's laws are never limited and they are absolute. But by the same token whatever He decides will happen are righteous and holy decisions that may include all kinds of things that His laws state are not righteous and holy - He never contradicts the law because He is perfect.” Then how is it you reason He ordained they would lie? I’m not sure you even understand your own argument. Your heart tells you that He is a holy God, perfect in all His ways which we are clearly taught in Scripture. But you reason like a fallen man! I’m guilty of this too so don’t take the statement the wrong way. My intentions in our discussion are not to condemn and I know first hand the struggle of understanding His ways. But I have to ask, are you even thinking your way through before commenting? You ask the question, “why would you assume that God would be pleased that you stood on Biblical principle and refused to lie as if that were a better good than saving a life just to save a life by lying?” Because the biblical principles are those of God. They are His laws not mankind’s to rank and to implement as he sees fit to suit his own needs and understanding. Now, let me ask you why would you assume God would accept and/or condone the disobeying of His laws to fulfill the requirements of another? Does this question help you see the fallacy in your argument? In your comments about Anne Frank, what lie of omission are you talking about? You said “Question; why would you assume that God would be pleased that you stood on Biblical principle and refused to lie as if that were a better good than saving a life just to save a life by lying? Which one is worse lying, or being complicit in murder? That reminds me of a certain group of people that believed you could not do anything on the Sabbath because it was one of the Ten Commandment sins, as is lying, but Jesus said to them, "which one of you would not break the law to save the life of his live stock if it fell down the well?" to paraphrase that is the jist of what He meant. I think that says it all right there. I think we should be willing to consider that there are higher goods and acts than law keeping and preservation of somebody elses life might be one of them.” I do not assume God would be pleased that I stood on biblical principles and refused to lie as if that were a better good then saving a life. The assumption is with you not me! What needs to be understood is that both are sinful, God does not expect nor condone we do either one nor does he present us with the option of choosing one over the other. It is the fallacy in fallen men to think he has to lie to save the life. It is the fallacy in the hearts and minds of fallen men who also misunderstand and misrepresent God’s laws. Case in point, the paraphrase you gave is not what the scripture teaches so let’s be careful how we approach the word to bolster our position. Matthew 12:11-12 (NASB) 11 And He said to them, "What man is there among you who has a sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 "How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." Note the Lord says in verse 12, it is LAWFUL to do good on the Sabbath. You on the other hand present it as the breaking of the law which in fact is the same thing those who set out to trap the Lord was doing. Can you see the error? He did not break one law for what you would call a better good. There is no “better good” in breaking any law! Steve |
||||||
3 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 207935 | ||
Steve, having read only your comment, may I point out something to consider regarding Mt 12:12? I think the point Jesus was making was that, in taking the sheep out of the pit on the sabbath, the person does not break the sabbath law - maybe the letter of the law but not the spirit (that for which the law is intended) -because it is lawful to do what is good on the sabbath. Jesus was saying, "You'd break the sabbath in order to save an animal; why condemn me for breaking the sabbath in order to heal the sick?" Jesus did break or allow the law to be broken. Jesus even condoned David's breaking the law by eating food that was for only the priests. It just may be that the one who lies in order to preserve another's life, although breaking the law with respect to the letter, is nevertheless, not breaking the law with respect to the spirit, that is, it's intention. The "evil" of the lie is meant to bring out a good, that is, the saving of a life. Now, I'm not saying that the end justifies the means, at least, not in general or "let us do 'evil' that good may come of it"; but there are some cases where this proverb may apply. I realize this is a sticky situation to be put in but, for me, if my lie would save one's life, I'll either omit the information or, if pressed, I don't think I'll have any qualms in lying. In general, I agree with you. However, not absolutely everything is "black and white" (as much as we'd like it to be). Just something to think about. |
||||||
4 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | stjohn | 207936 | ||
Hi Lookin... Nice to see you are still around! The Pharisees only thought it was Sabbath breaking to save an animal on the Sabbath, and that was according to the "pharisaical" Mosesaic law, this is the practicing and teaching of the strict observance of externality in the ceremonies and observances of religion, and or conduct, with no regard to the spirit intended in the giving of the law by God; this is a self-righteous and hypocritical attitude that many religious people have, and not according to God's law. Jesus was without sin, there is NO way he could have sinned even in the letter of the law, as you put it. Wether it be in the letter or spirit of the law, there was no law broken at all by our Lord! See again where our Lord says, v12 "It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath". |
||||||
5 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 207942 | ||
I have no problem agreeing with you although I have not done any particular study of whether or not Jesus ever actually violated the Law. What just comes to mind is that he touched a leper and dead a body in order to bring healing. And, I did mention Jesus condoning David for breaking the law eating food that was only for the priests to eat. I don't think Jesus' perfection is endangered if he did break the letter of the Law in some way (although, admittedly, it is kind of hard to imagine; probably just as hard to imagine Jesus in a wedding where the guests are getting drunk and he supplies more wine). In any case, I don't think we can judge those Christians who have lied in order to save another's life as having disobeyed God, be it those who hid Jews during WWII or Christians in China today to try to protect their pastors, congregation, or family. I once read of this Christian women under persecution who, in order to protect her young daughter from being raped and tortured to death, since she had absolutely no other avenue of escape,spoke softly to her daughter, held her, and jumped off a cliff to both of their deaths. Yes, that is extreme - thou shalt not kill' - but I find it hard to see God condemning her outright. I also think about Bonhoeffer in collaborating to kill - murder - Hitler. There are other really rather radical stories of Christians under persecution and the unorthodox things they did to protect others. Some answers don't come as easy as we would like; like I said before, not everything is a simple "black and white". |
||||||
6 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Morant61 | 207956 | ||
Greetings Looking! I am not trying to pick on you my friend, but your post is an example of what happens when we try to apply our standards to God's Word, yet ignore what it actually says. Allow me to illustrate what I mean! You wrote: "I don't think Jesus' perfection is endangered if he did break the letter of the Law in some way (although, admittedly, it is kind of hard to imagine; probably just as hard to imagine Jesus in a wedding where the guests are getting drunk and he supplies more wine)." Heb. 4:15 says, " For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin." James 2:10 - "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." Now, according to these Scriptures, does it really matter if Jesus broke the Law or not? If Jesus had violated even one small part of the Law, He would have been guilty of breaking it all and would not have been without sin. If He was not without sin, then He could be the sacrifice for our sins. Now, you cited a couple of examples 'that came to mind' of Jesus breaking the Law. Let's look at these examples. 1) Did Jesus break the Law by touching a leper? Nowhere in Scripture is it declared a 'sin' to touch a leper. Lev. 13-14 gives directions about the examination and treatment of those who have various sin diseases. People with certain diseases were to be kept away from the general populace, unless healed, to avoid contagion. It is interesting that we would accuse Jesus of breaking the Law, even though the Law never says 'thou shalt not touch a leper'; yet, we would justify ourselves for violating the command not to lie. ;-) 2) How about a dead body? There are a couple of issues involving dead bodies. a) A person could be made ceremonially unclean by touching a dead body. However, this was not a sin issue. It was a ceremonial regulation with set procedures to follow. b) The only time that the word 'sin' is used with touching a dead body is in the case of a person who had taken a special vow. The vow was voluntary and violating it was considered a sin (see Num. 6). Jesus broke no Law by touching a dead body. 3) Finally, how about David and his eating of the bread? This question could get quite lengthy, so allow me to address it in an abbreviated manner. Even though Jesus says that it was not lawful for David to eat of the bread, it is not clear that Jesus is actually saying that David did something wrong. What I mean is this: There was no law that no one except a priest could eat of this bread. It seems to have been more of a tradition of the Jews, and Jesus may have simply meant that David violated their tradition. In conclusion, there simply isn't any Biblical support for the notion that Jesus broke the Law. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | stjohn | 207959 | ||
Good post Tim! I have nothing to add to that, very well stated post! :-) Thank you. God bless John |
||||||