Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
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 | 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. |
||||||
2 | 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". |
||||||
3 | 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". |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | 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 |
||||||