Romans 7:15-24 writes: For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that [it is] good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
I writes:
The apostle seems to be asserting, very vigorously, that his free will applies only to what he wants to do (his thinking), and not at all to what he actually ends up doing (his actions.) Is he mistaken in this assertion? Does he require correction from someone who knows more theology than him?
Do we go to hell for our actions? Or for our intentions? Or just by default, pending intervention from some Higher Power....
He would need no correction if you understood his language usage and the nature of his subject. Far from being hard to understand this is actually a very simple passage. The subject of the book of romans is the connection between sin and death and its contrast in mans inability to save himself, whether by instinct or by the law of Moses.
Being biblically versed in these matters, Im sure you are fully aware of these points, correct?
Paul is here using exaggeration by way of contrast to illustrate the point that man has no possible way of saving himself from sin and death. he is not saying that sin is something apart from his actual mental process, for he states, "for to will is present with me". "Sin is transgression of the law" as 1John3:4, states, which would come by the way of reason. Paul is simply dividing the two to show the nature of sin and its relationship to the Law of God.
To further demonstrate this point Paul says in another place. "I buffet my body daily, to bring it (freewill) into subjection, that lest after I have preached unto others, I myself should be castaway"
"Be ye therefore imitators of me, as I am an imitator of Christ"
If Paul was speaking in a literal sense in Romans, it would make no sense to make these comments later. he therefore is using exaggeration and reverse terminology to demonstrate the opposite point. I have control to not sin, but when I do the sin it is such that it leaves me captive, because its nature is to separate me from God completely, with no hope in myself or my abilites, for recovery.
Here is another example of the same type of usage.
"Nevertheless I live, YET NOT I, but Christ liveth in me. and the life that I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who died and gave himself for me."
Was Paul actually and physically dead when he wrote these words obviously, not
language usage to demonstrate an alternate or opposite point.
No, Paul is not speaking of himself presently or is he suggesting he has no control over whether to sin or not, only that he himself cannot extricate himself from the situation that is the result of sin. Hmmmm, I wonder who may be able to extricate him from that situation?
By the time Paul wrote these words he was no longer a wretched man or was he in need of saving. his words in verse 24,close the door on whether he is speaking literally about freewill and whether he has control over it.
The possibility of sin is analytical to the proposition of freewill
Analytical 4. Logic. (of a proposition) necessarily true because its denial involves a contradiction, as All husbands are married.
never. did he go up when the time was right and when the time came for him to do it as he had planned? the operative words are "YET.' and "had gone up"
Could lying be a virtue?
Is you implication that he stole the donkey. Was there any indication that the person objected or saw it as stealing?
Would lying to save Jewish children from genocide be a very great virtue?
Im sorry I dont see the part in the passage that says her good works included lying. I see, "when she had recieved the messengers and sent them out another way". Perhaps God overlooked her lying, not because she hid some people from evil men, but because he is longsuffering and patient with most everyone.
Does God tend to lie?
No
Im missing your point on this one
What justification could be given for this?
If a man kills another man and the judge sentences him to death (kills him) is the judge evil
Which side in this debate is liable to end up in hell?
Its 2:00 am, so I may be missing an easy point here, maybe you could elaborate
. . . but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until his enemies be made a footstool for his feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (NASB) Hebrews 10:12-14
again I am sorry, I am missing your point. Maybe you could elaborate
quote:What difference does this make? We are disputing the justification of it from a human perspective not from strictly a Biblical perspective.
Our beef so to speak from a humanist point of view is that we don't believe these rules should be as black and white as what Christian fundamentalists make them out to be with no consideration for the conditions, motives or background behind the infractions. The same point of view can be said of the religious justification in their belief in heaven and hell.
In other words, how can a good god condemn all of humanity to hell for breaking simple rules such as stealing bread or lying to protect another humans life? This is what is called in legal terms "the reasonable person standard"? If this type of thinking doesn't hold up in our human courts why should we expect any less from a supposedly all-knowing, all-good, all-present supernatural entity?
Righteous lying is supported in the Bible. Rahab and the spies. (Joshua 6) Elisha lied to the soldiers with God's help. (2 Kings 6:18 - 20) Hebar’s wife lied to Sisera. (Judges 4) God commanded Moses to lie to Pharaoh. (Exodus 3:18) Jesus lied to his brothers. (John 7:2-10)
The point of the "doing good on the Sabbath" story was precisely what you're talking about. (Mark 3, Luke 14) Spirit of the law vs letter of the law. Gotta use common sense.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
It seems to be a futile effort arguing if Christian vision of the world is just an imagination or truth. Everyone tends to chose the answer based on emotions and beliefs rather than on rational thinking. (If we do not believe it is also our "belief" that something is not trustworthy). First - being honest with ourselves and not falling into the trap of prejudices (pro- or anti- to an idea) Next - investigating what seems true to us, without rejecting inconvenient things.
When searching the web anyone can find people`s opinions regarding fundamental philosophical questions, for example - historical analysis of psychological need for religion, and so on. Many people believe thay are "wiser" not falling into some kind of religion. So many ideas - which one is true ?
No matter what you think - what you truly experience is what counts :
Some used-to-be atheists had an opportunity to see what is behind the curtain of death and return to our world. What seemed to them a "medieval story used to install fear among uneducated people" turned out to be their very real experience. (Sometimes more real than this reality we are immersed in now.) This made a lasting impression even on medical personnel resuscitating them.
Let`s investigate these testimonies, without prejudices, remembering that no matter how intelligent our critical opinion might be, only the empirical confirmation is of real value. And that`s what our life is all about - to obtain what`s best for us and people we love.
You cant take NO for an answer can you? I told you it would not be the RIGHT THING to do from a Biblical perspective, to lie, lying is always wrong and in all cases, a sin. What I would do and what God deems as a sin are two different things, if that is what I choose to do.
So you would knowingly commit a sin such as lying, which you know is always against God if the circumstances dictated you to do so i.e. to protect another human’s life? In other words you would lie to protect a life even though you knew you would be directly violating God. To me this is evidence that you are torn between two standards. One, a 100% inflexible, manytimes inhumane standard of God in the OT which does not take into consideration compassion, love, and other virtues even spoke about in the NT and that of the more humane, civil and reasonable human standard which have evolved through centuries of human development and judicial progress i.e. the Declaration of Independence, UN Declaration of Human Rights, civil rights movement, etc.
In other words you are torn between following your inflexible religious beliefs on one hand and our evolved system of human ethics on the other. Many times they can coexist but at other times they clash and this is one example where they do so.
you not pay attention to the part where I said God does not immediatley punish every thing that violates his principles and that that one action on the ladys part did not constitute her whole Christian walk.
I could care less when you think she would be punished for doing this act of mercy, my issue is that to punish her at all for doing this act strikes me as morally wrong.
perhaps God is not a bastard, maybe you just an idiot and cant understand simple biblical principles. of course I am just kidding about the idiot part, as I assume you were about calling God those names.
Actually no I am not kidding about calling the god you believe in these names. If your god acts like a tyrant, a bully, egomaniac and selfish self-centered entity of the Bible than he is one. Watch the end of Star Trek V since you seem to be a Star Trek fan and you will see the point I am getting at. I.e. Bones: I doubt any God who inflicts pain for his own pleasure. Yes it was one of the weaker and rather discombobulated ST movies and overall a bad movie, but I thought it made a decent and rather poignant point about the concept of the capricious, jealous and violent God of the Bible and Koran at the very end of the movie and why the heck should we worship much less believe such a being to exist.
And no I could really care less what names you call me.
EMA writes:
Me writes:
EMA writes:
God could have easily put his hand forward and stopped his Son from dying at the hands of the jews and Romans, but he did not, there was a greater principle.
And you think your Jesus is the only person on this planet to suffer? Jesus, if he ever existed, was not the only person to be persecuted, tortured or even crucified.
Come on DA, when I debated you in the distant past you seemed so much more rational, now you are letting your emotions run wild. Your response has nothing to do with the argument I made.
Actually they do, and your attempt to bring my emotional state into this does nothing to help your case, so just stick to the arguments please. Your attempt to shift the blame and get off topic is astounding.
Why do you think that the suffering of your Jesus is any more different than the suffering of millions of people on this planet i.e. children dying of starvation and disease (which I think would be more painful because of its lengthy duration than probably dying on a cross), horrible diseases in which people commit suicide from to escape the pain, brutal killing, decapitation, etc, etc. Answer the question.
Lying to protect the lives of other people is not evil. To say otherwise is ludicrous, destructive and just plain stupid. If a complete stranger or a known sexual offender asks if you have children in your house are you going to say yes? Really?!?
god says lying is wrong, point blank, if you disagree, your intitled to your opinion. Im going to have to go with God and the scriptures.
Ok, you are entitled to your opinion as I am mine but isn’t that the purpose of this forum to battle out our opinions and determine validity in arguments and worldviews? If not I guess I am in the wrong forum.
To answer your question directly, if a person asked me if such a thing I would do several things, one of which is possibly lie depending if he had the drop on me with a gun.
This goes back to the first point I made in this post which I will not repeat again here but to say that this strikes as a form of cognitive dissonance in that why would you not have the moral backbone to stand up and not lie since you believe you would be going to heaven anyways would not getting shot just get you there quicker?
another is say nothing at all.
This is not always possible if one is being tortured. The human body/mind can only endure so much threshold of pain if one is being tortured. Not everyone is able to keep quite under unrelenting pain. Why do you think so many people admitted to being witches and committing sorcery during the inquisition? Do you really think these people were committing sorcery? I think not, they lied and admitted they were in order to get out of their current painful situations even though they just prolonged their inevitable demise.
another is try and over power him, since I am 245 pounds of isometric muscle, and a 2nd degree black belt in Aikido, in the first place. Id love to have seen Steven S and Chuck N, go at it in thier prime. Im betting Chuck would have prevailed, even though steven S, is one of my idols, that boy IS, or was bad
Yeah I took Kempo Karate myself once long ago and one of the first things our sensei told us is that if someone has a weapon like a gun, is to not antagonize the assailant, since you cannot outrun or outmaneuver a bullet.
at any rate as I said before God is very forgiving in the first place and does not always punish immediatley a single sin. If he did none us would be here in the first place.
The very idea of punishing people for showing compassion and saving other peoples live is to me abhorrent and wrong.
This is what your Jesus himself fought against the Pharisees in stating that the spirit of the law was MORE IMPORTANT than the letter of the law. In other words, you are more worried about following rules than about the well-being of another human being both physically and psychologically. That is the very self-centered, egotistical, self-righteous attitude your Jesus battled the Sanhedrin, Sadducees and Pharisees in the Bible.
Another atheistic Bible interpreter, Hmmmmm.
Another Christian who thinks all atheists, agnostics, non-believers no nothing about the Bible and have never studied it for themselves.
Do you remember Jesus saying, "Do as they say, not as they DO"
Yes and Paul also taught that you should obey your civil leaders so what should you do if these two conflict. You seem to oversimplify these passages i.e. Matthew 23 where Jesus states The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. Yet further on he states Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. and "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
This is EXACTLY the attitude I am talking about. You are more worried about breaking a single rule than you are about the life of those humans being saved. It is wrong, hypocritical and Pharisaical both in my sense of ethics, that of many modern Jews (I know my brother-in-law is one) and even many liberal Christians and, I believe, even in the Jesus of the Bible’s sense of ethics.
Do you remember him saying, speaking of Gods laws to the pharisees, "You should have practiced the one (forgiveness and mercy), without leaving off the weighter matters of the law" In other words he was saying, its fine to practice the letter if you also, practice the spirit of the law.
I am sorry please show me this verse. I do know a verse that says: 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men Matthew 15:8-9
Also Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone." Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent. He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.
Mark 3:1-5 My view of Christianity, God and Jesus Christ very similar to that of Thomas Jefferson if that helps.
EMA writes:
Me writes:
Yes, I believe that in most everyday situations honesty is the best approach and frivolous lying normally brings about disastrous results and is normally a selfish and self-destructive act. However, like I said earlier, human behavior is NOT black and white and there are times when honesty itself can be a destructive act i.e. not having the moral backbone to standup to criminals from conducting destructive acts due to your 'honesty', captured POWs devulging state secrets while being tortured and interrogated, etc.
Name rank and serial number is not lying. Saying nothin at all is not lying.
Again like I said earlier this is not always possible. Of course this is our mantra for being captured as POW but even John McCain was not able to keep to this. Under torture and pain we can’t even imagine it is not really possible to sustain this 100% of the time. Even ex-POWs will state where they have had to tell little white lies in order to escape the excruciating painful tortures i.e. Medal of Honor winner Colonol Bud Day: I got shot down over N Vietnam in 1967..a sq commander.
After I returned in 1973.. I published 2 books that dealt a lot with "real torture" in Hanoi. Our make believe president is branding our country as a bunch of torturers when he has no idea what torture is.
****e.g * as to me..put thru a mock execution cuz I wud not respond...pistol whipped on the head...same event.. Couple of days later...hung by my feet all day. I escaped and got recaptured a couple of weeks later.. I got shot and recaptured. Shot was OK...what happened after was not.
They marched me to Vinh.. put me in the rope trick trick..almost pulled my arms out of the sockets Beat me on the head w/ a little wooden rod until my eyes were swelled shut, and my unshot unbroken hand a pulp.
Next day hung me by the arms...rebroke my right wrist...wiped out the nerves in my arms that control the hands..rolled my fingers up into a ball. Only left the slightest movement of my L forefinger. So I started answering w/ some incredible lies.
Sent me to Hanoi strapped to a barrel of gas in the back of a truck.
Hanoi..on my knees..rope trick again. Beaten by a big fool.
Into leg irons on a bed in Heartbreak Hotel.
Much kneeling--hands up at Zoo.
Really bad beating for refuse to condemn Lyndon Johnson.
Several more kneeling events. Cud see my knee bone thru kneeling holes.
There was an escape from the annex to the Zoo. I was the Senior Officer of a large building
B-cuz of escape..they started a mass torture of all commanders.
I tk it was July 7, 1969..they started beating me w/ a car fan belt. In first 2 days I took over 300 strokes..then stopped counting cuz I never thought I wud live thru it.
They continued day-nite torture to get me to confess to a non-existant part in the escape. This went on for at least 3 days. On my knees..fan belting.. cut open my scrotunm w/ fan belt stroke. opened up both knee holes again. My fanny looked like hamburger..I cud not lie on my back.
They tortured me into admitting that I was in on the escape..and that my 2 room-mates nu about it.
The #3 rules of the US military Code of Conduct is If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
If the POW detainers torture a POW for information concerning escape attempts being silent is not an option as they will continue and continue and continue to torture you to get a confession. Sometimes telling a white lie is the only way to get them off. It is a game of give and take and deception and counter deception.
heres an example, Tasha Yar says to Spock, "You will give the location of the other ships", Spock says, after raising eyebrow, "Since it is logical to assume you will kill us in either instance, I choose not to cooperate". see, he didnt lie
He also wasn’t tortured or under mental and physical duress. And it is a damn movie not real life.
EMA writes:
Me writes:
So if I am in the battlefield and the enemy tortures me and I lie to protect the freedoms and safety of other human beings that is evil? Really?
Simply say nothing at all.
Not always possible as shown by Colonel Day’s report above.
EMA writes:
Me writes:
This series of acts were one of the most honorable and GOOD things she did in her life. She and her family herself were sent to concentration camps and she single-handedly saved literally dozens of lives.
she was a great person as I have stated and she is now with her Lord
Yet you think it was wrong she lied to protect the people she saved.
Me writes:
Bullshit, my argument is with you and your religious extremist and fundamentalist friends and your wrong headed worldview of intolerance, bigotry and self-centered self-righteous attitudes and behavior. Again stop telling me what my argument is. Then simply present the passage from Gods directives that allows for a lie to be not a lie, but something different or less than a lie.
Where in the Bible does it say that lying is always wrong?
Me writes:
And that is the source of contention that so called loving Christians would accept such a destructive and hateful view of reality as to believe that many of their friends and family will be eternally tormented FOREVER while they frolic in heaven with God. It is sickening, revulting and disgusting.
EAM writes:
DA argue it rationally, not emotionally. It almost demonstrates you are lacking in a valid respone.
How is the above not rational?????? To me it is you not being rational by trying to poison the well so to speak and diverting the conversation away from these issues I bring up.
EAM writes:
I dont know what eternal torment is or is not. It may be one of those things that when we get there, that it is explained and understood, it in a way we cannot now understand and it will make sense from a omnipotent perspective
And you claim I am not rational, this sounds like a cop-out if I ever saw one. This is basically what just occurred:
Christian: You have to get right with God or you are going to hell
Non-believer: Why should I follow someone is sending everyone to eternal torment in hell
Christian: Because God is good and cannot accept us evil sinners
Non-believer: Why is it good for people to be eternally torment in hell, to me this sounds like a capricious, evil, twisted immoral thing to do and how can you live in heaven when your friends and family are all being tormented in hell
Christian: Just trust me and stop asking so many questions, when you get to heaven God will answer all
Non-believer: Rolls-eyes
Simple video for those with an ability to rationally reason and talk about their beliefs:
also
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
I thought we were looking at it from a Biblical perspective, since God is the one despensing heaven and hell from freewill perspctive.
Ok, well, that will depend on what person you ask, in which country and in which century. if we are going at it from a human perspective, let me know when you get a consensus, that every persons agrees on, and Ill take a look at it.
You and your Christian friends have to defend your position from a Biblical perspective by definition of your faith. Non-believers do not. That was my point. Sorry if I was not clear on that.
Me writes:
Our beef so to speak from a humanist point of view is that we don't believe these rules should be as black and white as what Christian fundamentalists make them out to be with no consideration for the conditions, motives or background behind the infractions. The same point of view can be said of the religious justification in their belief in heaven and hell.
they may be black and white from an omnipotent eternal perspective and they could be nothing short of that, for omniscience could be nothing short of absolute, by its very nature. however, god is not simply knowledge and rules, he is forgiveness, longsuffering, patience and mercy.
Yet, he even does not abide by all these rules as attested in the Bible. How is sending all humanity to hell a demonstration of forgiveness, longsuffering, patience and mercy? With friends like that who needs enemies
if you are looking for and insist on grey areas, I suppose these would be as close as you could come to that discription
I don't follow.
Again, i dont know exacally what eternal punishment involves and entails. i do know that an 0mnipotent eternal perspective is much better than mine, thats assuming you believe in the Bible as Gods word, I do
And why should you believe everthing in the Bible is true?
heres one for you from a human perspective. If as you say, it is ok to put someone to death in certain cases of capital punisment, would it be ok to cut of thier hand, if they are a bonified kleptomaniac? if not , why not.
No, because the punishment in my and many others opinion does not fit the crime. Of course, this is subjective, but it does have rational and scientific backing.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
thanks for all the wonderful responses, I am working on them now and will take them to work, it will take a bit of time, its alot of material. Im sure these discourses will bring us even closer emotionally, ha ha. See ya in a while
In other words you are torn between following your inflexible religious beliefs on one hand and our evolved system of human ethics on the other. Many times they can coexist but at other times they clash and this is one example where they do so.
Well, this has nothing to do with the argument I made. You have now turned the main point from whether God has any situation, where one may lie and it not be a sin, to my weaknesses. One really has nothing to do with the other
Did you not pay attention to the part where I said God does not immediatley punish every thing that violates his principles and that that one action on the ladys part did not constitute her whole Christian walk.
I could care less when you think she would be punished for doing this act of mercy, my issue is that to punish her at all for doing this act strikes me as morally wrong.
I did not say she would be punished for her actions, you really should pay attention. I said Lying is always a sin and it will get punished. In this case however, Christ took her place and if she was a devout Christian, she is now with her Lord. This has nothing to do with whether lying is a sin always and everywhere, it only demonstrates that God is loving, tolerant, patient God.
Isnt that the very point though, you don’t have to pay for a single sin, its already paid for you, just make the right choice. perhaps God is not a bastard, maybe you just an idiot and cant understand simple biblical principles. of course I am just kidding about the idiot part, as I assume you were about calling God those names.
Actually no I am not kidding about calling the god you believe in these names. If your god acts like a tyrant, a bully, egomaniac and selfish self-centered entity of the Bible than he is one. Watch the end of Star Trek V since you seem to be a Star Trek fan and you will see the point I am getting at. I.e. Bones: I doubt any God who inflicts pain for his own pleasure. Yes it was one of the weaker and rather discombobulated ST movies and overall a bad movie, but I thought it made a decent and rather poignant point about the concept of the capricious, jealous and violent God of the Bible and Koran at the very end of the movie and why the heck should we worship much less believe such a being to exist. And no I could really care less what names you call me.
I am assuming this entity on planet Shakari, was not omniscient and he was not because he could not even get off of the planet, sustain a phaser blast or comindier a ship. Only omniscience can decide what and when punishment is acceptable and what it entails. God does not inflict pain from pleasure.
Why do you think that the suffering of your Jesus is any more different than the suffering of millions of people on this planet i.e. children dying of starvation and disease (which I think would be more painful because of its lengthy duration than probably dying on a cross), horrible diseases in which people commit suicide from to escape the pain, brutal killing, decapitation, etc, etc. Answer the question
In debate this is known as misdirection, this has nothing to do with what I am saying or the point I was making. Jesus suffered both separation from God’s spirit . ill be happy to discuss this question in this same thread of another. Stick to the point at hand
Lying to protect the lives of other people is not evil. To say otherwise is ludicrous, destructive and just plain stupid. If a complete stranger or a known sexual offender asks if you have children in your house are you going to say yes? Really?!?
Lying is evil because it a sin, according to the Bible. simply keep in mind what I have said in this connection, or I should say, what the rest of the Bible says. If you still disagree from a human perspective, that is your choice, we are at an empass.
Here is a valid point to remember. It will do no good to point out examples of people lying in the scriptures, because there are examples of people sinning in the scriptures, besides lying.
this does not mean God approved of those sins In some examples, like that of Moses he makes it immediately clear that hitting the rock instead of speaking to it was wrong. But God did not immediately punish Moses, the action was still wrong. God has already made it clear in no uncertain terms that lying is wrong. It does not mean he approves of it or does not deem it as sin In the Old testament God made provisions for all killing or taking of life, not to be murder, in the cities of refuge by way of involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide. There are no such provisions for lying and stealing, its just lying and there are no addendums god says lying is wrong, point blank, if you disagree, your intitled to your opinion. Im going to have to go with God and the scriptures.
Ok, you are entitled to your opinion as I am mine but isn’t that the purpose of this forum to battle out our opinions and determine validity in arguments and worldviews? If not I guess I am in the wrong forum.
Yes and I am still waiting for the passage that is an addendum, to the simple, instruction, thou shalt not steal, to show that sin is not sin in certain cases.
Or the argument that sets aside the fact that omnipotence is not more than qualified to establish laws and rules as he sees fit. To answer your question directly, if a person asked me if such a thing I would do several things, one of which is possibly lie depending if he had the drop on me with a gun.
This goes back to the first point I made in this post which I will not repeat again here but to say that this strikes as a form of cognitive dissonance in that why would you not have the moral backbone to stand up and not lie since you believe you would be going to heaven anyways would not getting shot just get you there quicker?
EAM writes: another is say nothing at all.
This is not always possible if one is being tortured. The human body/mind can only endure so much threshold of pain if one is being tortured. Not everyone is able to keep quite under unrelenting pain. Why do you think so many people admitted to being witches and committing sorcery during the inquisition? Do you really think these people were committing sorcery? I think not, they lied and admitted they were in order to get out of their current painful situations even though they just prolonged their inevitable demise.
I am not stupid or unsympathetic to these situations, my favorite non-religious holiday is Memorial day and those that were in these situations. The lie however, does not become an untruth. God is not a monster in these situations and I am sure he understands their plight. Our Government or God would also understand if they went ahead and told the truth,they would not be held responsible in such cases .
This is EXACTLY the attitude I am talking about. You are more worried about breaking a single rule than you are about the life of those humans being saved. It is wrong, hypocritical and Pharisaical both in my sense of ethics, that of many modern Jews (I know my brother-in-law is one) and even many liberal Christians and, I believe, even in the Jesus of the Bible’s sense of ethics.
No i am taking the whole picture in view with a view to being completly objective. I am well aware that obeying commands without the grace of God is wrong, but Gods commands dont become subjective depending on the situation
I am sorry please show me this verse.
Matt23:23 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spicesmint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the lawjustice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."
here Jesus is saying it is fine too practice the minutia of the commands, AND YOU SHOULD, but he says you should also practice the spirit of the law, but dont forget the former either, the simple commands of say, not to lie
jesus said not one dotting of the I or crossing of the T shall pass until all is fulfilled
here is another:"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
If the POW detainers torture a POW for information concerning escape attempts being silent is not an option as they will continue and continue and continue to torture you to get a confession. Sometimes telling a white lie is the only way to get them off. It is a game of give and take and deception and counter deception.
DA I was very impressed with the information you presented on Col Day. No one deserves more respect than these fellas and if I know myself I would start singing like a bird, because i would not be able to endure even a tenth of what he went through.
Remember god does not wrap up a persons life in a single action or even a single lie, but I see no addendum as in the case of accidental death in the cities of refuge. there are no exceptions to make a lie not a lie. But God has taken care of the punishment by way of his son, if aperson will simply accept his gift
Spock also wasn’t tortured or under mental and physical duress. And it is a damn movie not real life.
youve got me there, a very good point
Yet you think it was wrong she lied to protect the people she saved.
her heart was in the right place, but it is still a violation of Gods law
Where in the Bible does it say that lying is always wrong?
Thou shalt not lie. do you see anyother addendums BY GOD, in written form, I dont
How is the above not rational?????? To me it is you not being rational by trying to poison the well so to speak and diverting the conversation away from these issues I bring up.
Please show me where I have done this or what I have not addressed
EAM writes: I dont know what eternal torment is or is not. It may be one of those things that when we get there, that it is explained and understood, it in a way we cannot now understand and it will make sense from a omnipotent perspective
DA writes:
And you claim I am not rational, this sounds like a cop-out if I ever saw one.
Not really because you have not demonstrated in the least how and why you should be able to circumvent, superceed or set aside omniscience and omnipotence. Maybe the book of Job will help you understand this point. you certainly have the right to question things, but the answer is going to be the same one Job and his friends recieved and thats only rational.
Now dont misunderstand me, I am not picking on Job, because I would not have been able to withstand even an hour of what the scriptures says he endured. I would have taken the easy way out and killed myself or had someone else do it.
Faith and trust is the only real avenue we have for trusting that God knows what he is doing. Notice I did not say faith is all we have, to believe in his existence, that is different But: "Without faith it is impossible to please God"
My guess is that he made that statement because he knew we would not understand all his edicts, commands and ways of doing things.
if this approach is not acceptable to you then I am sure you will stay where you are. the one you are attempting to understand will result in defeat by reason of logical impass
This is A nonsensical and contradictory statement. there are no addendums to the command to not lie, there is only a patient and longsuffering God. show me in any passage where God stated lying, would be acceptable, not examples of people lying
Rahab and the spies. (Joshua 6) Elisha lied to the soldiers with God's help. (2 Kings 6:18 - 20) Hebar’s wife lied to Sisera. (Judges 4) God commanded Moses to lie to Pharaoh. (Exodus 3:18) Jesus lied to his brothers. (John 7:2-10) The point of the "doing good on the Sabbath" story was precisely what you're talking about. (Mark 3, Luke 14) Spirit of the law vs letter of the law. Gotta use common sense
Purpledawn's vain attempts to imply God has set up situations where lying is not a sin. As I examined each passage I saw absolutley no evidence that God INSTRUCTED anyone to lie. do you not know PD that the Bible recording negative behavior of people is one of its strenghths that it is divine in origin.
these are stretches to make God appear to be saying it may be ok at times to lie. Please provide the passage that says, thou shalt not lie, except in certain situations where it may be ok. Since you always insist upon the plain text.
Where is the addendum, from Gods mouth that allows a non-truth to be a non-truth or NOT a lie
Here is a valid point to remember. It will do no good to point out examples of people lying in the scriptures, because there are examples of people sinning in the scriptures, in many other areas as well, this does not mean God approved of those sins either, because they were not immediatley addressed.
In some examples, like that of Moses he makes it immediately clear that hitting the rock instead of speaking to it was wrong. But God did not immediately punish Moses, the action was still wrong. God has already made it clear in no uncertain terms that lying is wrong. It does not mean he approves of it or does not deem it as sin, if some situation is necessary to circumvent the command In the Old testament God made provisions for SOME killing or taking of life, not to be murder, in the cities of refuge by way of involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide. There are no such provisions for lying and stealing, its just lying and there are no addendums
Interesting here, in another place you say Pharoah didnt have a choice, it was all orchestrated by God, now you seem to be saying these stories here are real and these people actually made a decision to lie with Gods appoval. maybe you could clear up this seeming contradictory mess nad let us know which parts of the Bible you quoted are actual stories, real, fabrications or simple illustrations. heck you cant even make it clear to us what the case is in this situation, much less provide the PLAIN and SIMPLE text that directly states by God that lying is acceptable in some situations.
quit giving me passages that state what a person did and give me one where God instructed someone to lie or one that is an obvious extrapolation to the simple command to not steal. the Bible is full of passages of what people did, that does not mean it wasnt sin and it doesnt mean god had to punish that sin immediatley to demonstrate that lying is and was not wrong in all instances
Furhter, DA was implying that I was like them and only focusing on the strict interpretation of the laws. I pointed out that he missed what Jesus had saying in its entirity in other passages. To do it ALL that is required both the physical commands and while not forgetting the spirit of the law.
reverse terminology to demonstrate the opposite point
So Paul is OK here, even though he is not telling the literal truth, because his intention is not to deceive?
Why would he not be OK, its figuative language to demonstrate a point Are you purposely ignoring the fact that I have demonstrated he is using figues of speeh and figurative language, to demonstrate a very large point. Did you pay attention to any of the other passages and arguments imade from the same type of verses.
So Jesus is OK here, even though the effect is to deceive and he knows it, to the point of disguising himself, because he tells the literal truth?
decieve who?. had he gone up publically after they had left, and been seen of the crowd and them it would have been a lie. his purpose for not going up publically, was not to decieve the apostles, but to not be recognized by the crowd, because of thier possible reaction to him. Is there any indication the Apostles or the crowd ever saw him in this instance, BEFORE HE DEEMED IT AS NON-THREATINING, if not, his original statement was not a lie, he did not go up publically, which was his original intention in his INITIAL statements. Read it carefully
John 7:2-10 (Today's New International Version) 2 But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, 3 Jesus' brothers said to him, "Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. 4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world." 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
6 Therefore Jesus told them, "My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. 8 You go to the Festival. I am not [a] going up to this Festival, because my time has not yet fully come." 9 Having said this, he stayed in Galilee.
10 However, after his brothers had left for the Festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.
EMA writes:
Perhaps God overlooked her lying
because...........
I writes:
So then, what's left? Who is not OK?
I bet it's this guy
Did you on purpose quote only a portion of what I said to create prejudice. Perhaps God overlooked her lying, not because it is not a sin, but because he is patient and longsuffering
I'm answering this in Admin mode because this is a rule you seem to have trouble following.
EMA writes:
Interesting here, in another place you say Pharoah didnt have a choice, it was all orchestrated by God, now you seem to be saying these stories here are real and these people actually made a decision to lie with Gods appoval. maybe you could clear up this seeming contradictory mess nad let us know which parts of the Bible you quoted are actual stories, real, fabrications or simple illustrations. heck you cant even make it clear to us what the case is in this situation, much less provide the PLAIN and SIMPLE text that directly states by God that lying is acceptable in some situations.
In this paragraph you are bringing in issues from other threads, from different forums that do not apply to this thread. Each thread is a separate debate, with its own parameters given the forum in which it resides or the originators preferences. The position a person takes in any debate may or may not be their own personal position outside this board. The position a person takes on any given subject may or may not even be the same position they've argued previously.
Please stick to the subject of the current thread and parameters set for this discussion by the forum and/or the originator.
Argue the position presented in the thread, not the person or positions presented in other threads.
If you take issue with my Admin comments, then take your complaints to the "Report discussion problems" thread. Do not respond in this thread.
Thanks AdminPD
P.S. This goes for all participants in this thread. Argue the position, not the person.
Edited by AdminPD, : PS
Edited by AdminPD, : Bold
Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate
In other words you are torn between following your inflexible religious beliefs on one hand and our evolved system of human ethics on the other. Many times they can coexist but at other times they clash and this is one example where they do so.
EAM writes:
Well, this has nothing to do with the argument I made. You have now turned the main point from whether God has any situation, where one may lie and it not be a sin, to my weaknesses. One really has nothing to do with the other
This is not off subject but is really relevant to the subject at hand. My point is that even though you know that lying is a sin, an infraction against your God, you would knowingly violate it premeditatively before hand because of some other standard. That is my point. My question is WHY would you do so.
Did you not pay attention to the part where I said God does not immediatley punish every thing that violates his principles and that that one action on the ladys part did not constitute her whole Christian walk.
Yes I understand what you are saying but you are not listening to what I am saying. My issue is not whether or not she would be punished it is why would lying to protect another human beings life be considered wrong at all. That is my source of contention. I could care less when you think she would be punished for doing this act of mercy, my issue is that to punish her at all for doing this act strikes me as morally wrong.
I did not say she would be punished for her actions, you really should pay attention. I said Lying is always a sin and it will get punished. In this case however, Christ took her place and if she was a devout Christian, she is now with her Lord.
This has nothing to do with whether lying is a sin always and everywhere, it only demonstrates that God is loving, tolerant, patient God.
Yet if one hypothetically never sinned at all except to lie to protect the life of another human being from harm or death, that person would be doomed for eternity in hell because of this one charitable action. That is the point I am making. Why would this action be considered wrong i.e. a sin at all.
Isnt that the very point though, you don’t have to pay for a single sin, its already paid for you, just make the right choice.
Yes, I understand all your religious backing, I used to preach it myself. You are not understanding the dilemma here. Why an all-knowing, all-omniscient, all-benevolent should damn all of humanity to eternal torment in hell even for the most ridiculously stupid and silly infractions i.e. eating a fruit on a tree while being pressured by a snake created by the very same god to eat the fruit also created by this diving being.
Yet this ‘all-powerful’ and ‘forgiving’ God decides all infractions against him no matter how big or small deserve death and because of this he murders himself so he can ‘forgive’ only those who believe and worship him, even though there is no conclusive proof he exists. So rather than just forgiving like any decent and rational person would do and which is taught in the VERY same book he wants everyone to read, he murders himself in our place even though he ‘didn’t deserve it’ (though some would disagree base on the baby-killing, woman-raping, bipolar disorder ridden sociopath deity YAHWEH in the OT), which satisfies himself and allows him to forgive everyone, and then he expects us to be happy because he did so.
Of all the confiscated and ridiculous stories I have heard in my life, this one takes the cake. In essence you are saying that we should be happy that someone was murdered in our place, in essence he murdered someone else (or himself however you want to view it) to satisfy himself, and we should all join you in heaven for never ending worship this unforgiving brutal dictator for eternity while the rest of humanity is being tortured FOR ETERNITY IN A BURNING LAKE OF FIRE.
I am sorry but I will opt out of this delusional escapade. Have fun while we burn. Maybe I should make that into a t-shirt.
I am assuming this entity on planet Shakari, was not omniscient and he was not because he could not even get off of the planet, sustain a phaser blast or comindier a ship. Only omniscience can decide what and when punishment is acceptable and what it entails. God does not inflict pain from pleasure.
Really than why does it say God is pleased when people offered animal sacrifices in the Bible. You don’t think these animals suffered any pain.
Also, according to the Bible your God is please with inflicting pain and destruction:
Deuteronomy 28:58-63 writes:
If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome namethe LORD your God- the LORD will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. He will bring upon you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you. The LORD will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed. 62 You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the LORD your God. Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess.
Nahum 1:2 writes:
The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies!
Ezekial 9:5-7 writes:
Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all — old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.
Jeremiah 51:20 writes:
You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers
Leviticus 26:21-22 writes:
If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted.
Isaiah 13:15-18 writes:
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.
If this isn't pleasure from the pain of others, I don't know what is. If you saw these quotes from a psychopath or a dictator you would be appalled but because they come from your revered and worshiped supernatural being they are ok.
EAM writes:
Me writes:
Why do you think that the suffering of your Jesus is any more different than the suffering of millions of people on this planet i.e. children dying of starvation and disease (which I think would be more painful because of its lengthy duration than probably dying on a cross), horrible diseases in which people commit suicide from to escape the pain, brutal killing, decapitation, etc, etc. Answer the question
In debate this is known as misdirection, this has nothing to do with what I am saying or the point I was making. Jesus suffered both separation from God’s spirit . ill be happy to discuss this question in this same thread of another. Stick to the point at hand
That is your claim but as I explain above even if it were true I don’t understand why God, the all-knowing all-benevolent being did not just choose to forgive people much less provide substantive proof that he exists. If God came down right now and explained to everyone that he really exists and that if they did not ship up or fly right, do you really think anyone but the psychopaths would not choose to obey and follow him. This really is not that hard. But to put a bunch of contradicting stories into a 2000 year old book that cannot be substantiated and make it seam like he does not exist and that everything occurred naturally rather than had a supernatural origin and then expect everyone just to trust this based on unwavering and uncritical blind faith to be saved from eternal damnation is ludicrous and to me is not credible.
EAM writes:
Me writes:
Lying to protect the lives of other people is not evil. To say otherwise is ludicrous, destructive and just plain stupid. If a complete stranger or a known sexual offender asks if you have children in your house are you going to say yes? Really?!?
Lying is evil because it a sin, according to the Bible. simply keep in mind what I have said in this connection, or I should say, what the rest of the Bible says.
And you believe the Bible because?
If you still disagree from a human perspective, that is your choice, we are at an empass.
I agree because your only source for what you believe is the Bible, and the reason you believe the Bible is because it is God’s word, and you believe in God because of the Bible. Hmm, care to elaborate.
Here is a valid point to remember. It will do no good to point out examples of people lying in the scriptures, because there are examples of people sinning in the scriptures, besides lying.
I am not trying to prove lying is ok using the Bible though I do disagree in that I have not seen anywhere where it says all lying no matter what circumstance is wrong in the Bible.
Will have to continue this discussion in another post, have to run.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
™ Version 4.2
(1)