Dear Joe:
I am responding to you last, because you appear to have the most patience.
I trust you perceive that others here have not understood nor really followed our discussion, but have turned it into an excuse to argue.
Thank you for your careful and considerate response to my last post to you.
Joe said:
I agree. God deluded some of the wickid, but he did not deceive them. After reading DHK’s post, I looked up the word delusion. Deluding or deluded is the correct word, not deceive though that is a synonym. Assuming you agree with the facts (definitions) below, which are similar, I will continue with this post.
de·ceive-
1archaic : ensnare
2 aobsolete : to be false to barchaic : to fail to fulfill
3obsolete : cheat
4: to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid
5archaic : to while away intransitive verb
de·lu·sion
an act or instance of deluding. the state of being deluded.
Deluded
de·lud·ed, de·lud·ing, de·ludes
1. To deceive the mind or judgment of: See Synonyms at deceive.
2. Obsolete To elude or evade.
3. Obsolete To frustrate the hopes or plans of.
Continuing on, we know the Lord is sinless perfection. These powerful delusions thrown by God to delude(d) the wicked are for the greater good. Even if it isn’t revealed to us, we must trust him.
Let me begin in agreement with you that God is indeed SINLESS PERFECTION.
I have no problem at all with that doctrine.
This I am sure we agree upon, and is not a real point of debate between us.
I was concerned that some of our discussion would get bogged down in semantics, but I sensed that you also did not wish that to occur.
I appreciate your posting of definitions; for completeness we could have a few examples of definitions for 'lying'.
But I think this won't be necessary, if we can agree in this:
My use of the word 'lie' or 'lying' appears provocative, and has caused some confusion among various people here. I suggest we follow your lead, and avoid that word entirely in this discussion, and perhaps even the word 'deceive', and in the main just accept the word 'delusion'.
This will not automatically resolve any truth issues, but it will prevent further distractions over semantics.
The question isn't really one of 'words', but a question of ethical and moral standards, both those that God would hold us to, and those that God Himself holds up as an example for us.
So it is important to clarify those standards, not the wording, but real intent and meaning of them.
Agreed
Alright, here is more scripture.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Romans 3:4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."
"I have not written unto you because you know not the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth." (1 John 2:21).
"I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the father except thru me"
This won't be a full response, but just an initial observation here.
In the language here as it has been traditionally translated, it does indeed seem to set also a standard of acceptable language in regard to God, for the purpose of not misleading ourselves or others about God's nature.
Obviously Jesus was the ultimate example given to us of God as Father.
And simultaneously Jesus is held up in the gospels as the paradigm of Truth.
It is a foregone conclusion that God the Father is essentially Truthful in His nature.
So we start there.
Yet you yourself have admitted to me that God indeed "deludes" men, and that this is also a very REAL TRUTH about God.
So it is up to us to find the correct way to reconcile these TWO TRUTHS, to divide the word of God accurately to result in the COMPLETE TRUTH, as painted by the Holy Scriptures.
Correct me if I am wrong. Your saying if God approves or authorizes a plan which involves a violation of his law, (Lying for example) then God is implicated in the violation of the law?
Hmm. Now if I understand you correctly, the example might be this.
God forbids murder. But God's law requires executions in the process of meting out justice. It is a logical fallacy to say that God condones 'murder' or is hypocritical here, because murder and killing are not synonyms.
One can obviously accidentally kill someone (accidental death) or even via neglegence or incompetance, (manslaughter), or even malice aforethought WITHOUT intent to murder (i.e., homicide during the commission of another crime).
So we don't find a real difficulty with God allowing killing in some circumstances, such as extreme violations of the Moral Law (e.g. Ten Commandments).
A second argument could be brought forward in any case, that God is different in NATURE and KIND than man, and obviously has DIFFERENT authority. This could mean that God is NOT under the same laws as man, although He would remain ultimately pure and without sin (that is not under debate), and He would remain righteous and honest (which is the claim under review).
So just as we have different laws for men and women and animals, we might expect different laws for mankind and God. There is no necessity or need to admit there is any hypocrisy in this.
The question is not,
"Are the laws for God and Man identical?"
But rather,
"Are the laws for God and Man just and fair?"
The problem with that is God is only bound to his own law when he chooses to be, which is revealed in his word. So regarding this topic of lying, God not only forbids us not to lie, but he has willed himself incapable of lying. He has been incapable of lying before he created earth. He deems lying as sin thus he cannot lie. He is sinless
And what is wrong/sin for us isn’t necessarily wrong or sinful for God.
Comparing Gods laws to our secular legal system only goes so far in holding water.
I think some of your sentiments and arguments here are also fleshed out in my discussion above.
One thought I have on your last statements here is that if we DEFINE lying as a sin, and we DEFINE God as sinless, then we have 'proven' God does not 'lie' through a tautology, or by mere semantics.
We may not have solved any real ethical issues at all, but have merely defined 'lying' as necessarily involving 'sin'.
The argument then would be: "Does God lie?"
"No. In our dictionary 'lying' is said also to be a sin. God is sinless. Therefore God could not have lied, even if He appears to have technically gone through the same motions, and physically done the exact same thing as the 'liar' has."
To me this kind of argument is not satisfactory for I think obvious reasons.
Peace,
Nazaroo
