Ethics Question

[gb93433]

We have the 10 commandments, right? We know what they are, right?

Do you make the sabbath day holy? Would you expect a doctor who may be called to an emergency because someone is dying to stay in church and not care for the person he was called to treat. I see what God calls us to is not legalism but the highest calling and priority. Do pastors not work on Sunday? So if a pastor works in any way would he not be keeping the sabbath day holy?

While one verse in Prov 6:17 makes it clear God hates a "lying tongue"...our commandment mentions nothing about "thou shalt not lie...with your tongue"

Look at all that surrounds that statement.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

Do you make the sabbath day holy? Would you expect a doctor who may be called to an emergency because someone is dying to stay in church and not care for the person he was called to treat. I see what God calls us to is not legalism but the highest calling and priority. Do pastors not work on Sunday? So if a pastor works in any way would he not be keeping the sabbath day holy?

Look at all that surrounds that statement.

The 10 commandments say "Thou Shalt not Lie"

This thread is an ethics question on lying.

So my question still stands: Does the 10 commandments further explain "thou shalt not lie"?

I was given one verse that states God hates a lying tounge. that's great. I think we all knew that, and I appreciate the verse.

But do we have a verse that God says he doesn't hate the lying gesture? Or the lying misdirection?

 

[gb93433]

But do we have a verse that God says he doesn't hate the lying gesture? Or the lying misdirection?

Take a look at 1 Sam 16:2 and see if that is not something God suggested?

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

Take a look at 1 Sam 16:2 and see if that is not something God suggested?

I looked up that verse, and found this footnote

It was the purpose of God that David should be anointed at this time as Saul's successor, and as the ancestor and the type of His Christ. It was not the purpose of God that Samuel should stir up a civil war, by setting up David as Saul's rival. Secrecy, therefore, was a necessary part of the transaction. But secrecy and concealment are not the same as duplicity and falsehood. Concealment of a good purpose, for a good purpose, is clearly justifiable. There is therefore nothing in the least inconsistent with truth in the occurrence here related.

I appreciate that scripture. But what you did was give me an instance where God clearly dictated to one person what to do.

It doesn't change what I've said above. It doesn't mean that the only lies one can do are by the tounge.

I'm not arguing right or wrong, or when it's right or wrong. My beef is with the ideal of what is a lie. Misdirection? Deceit? Etc. Not just words of the mouth.

 

[gb93433]

I'm not arguing right or wrong, or when it's right or wrong. My beef is with the ideal of what is a lie. Misdirection? Deceit? Etc. Not just words of the mouth.

Proverbs were principles then just they are in our society today. If we lie or misdirect someone could we not also be saving them from something much worse later. If someone redirected a person such as Rahab did would we prevent them from something much more terrible later. Something they would have to live with the rest of their life and possibly be executed or die in prison.

Suppose we misdirected a robber and the person becomes a believer of does not become a believer have we not saved them from something worse later such as a jail time or suffering because of what they did to someone. I cannot imagine a person purposely killing someone or even robbing someone and then becoming a believer later and the pain the person would go through the rest of their life. In misdirecting we may save two people. The robber and the person he wanted to rob. Is that not the higher goal than just the immediate. Let's add a little to that. Suppose you had a friend and someone wanted to rob you and the robber asked where you were and your friend told him what would that do to the robber, your friend, and you. Would his refusal to misdirect someone serve any purpose that would glorify God?

 

[John of Japan]

We have the 10 commandments, right? We know what they are, right?

While one verse in Prov 6:17 makes it clear God hates a "lying tongue"...our commandment mentions nothing about "thou shalt not lie...with your tongue"

Actually, the 10 Commandments don't speak of all lying, but a specific kind of very harmful lying: false witness.

Just because God hates a lying tongue, doesn't mean he also doesn't hate a lie that isn't spoken. I think you're walking a very fine line here

Lying is lying is lying..

You asked for a verse, since you won't accept English dictionary definitions, and I gave it.

I don't know if there are times that it's good or bad, but it's still a lie. I'll let God be the judge on that one.

I'm on the side that is against all lying. There are plenty of verses on this. The Hebrew word for lie, lying, liar occurs 16 times in the OT, none of them positively. There is much more in the NT, such as that Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44), all liars will be in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8), etc.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

Proverbs were principles then just they are in our society today. If we lie or misdirect someone could we not also be saving them from something much worse later. If someone redirected a person such as Rahab did would we prevent them from something much more terrible later. Something they would have to live with the rest of their life and possibly be executed or die in prison.

Suppose we misdirected a robber and the person becomes a believer of does not become a believer have we not saved them from something worse later such as a jail time or suffering because of what they did to someone. I cannot imagine a person purposely killing someone or even robbing someone and then becoming a believer later and the pain the person would go through the rest of their life. In misdirecting we may save two people. The robber and the person he wanted to rob. Is that not the higher goal than just the immediate. Let's add a little to that. Suppose you had a friend and someone wanted to rob you and the robber asked where you were and your friend told him what would that do to the robber, your friend, and you. Would his refusal to misdirect someone serve any purpose that would glorify God?

What's that have to do with me defining it as a lie? Again, I'm not arguing right or wrong or sin or not. Mine is merely in the definitin of a lie.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

Actually, the 10 Commandments don't speak of all lying, but a specific kind of very harmful lying: false witness.

My bad here, as I should've been more clear.

You asked for a verse, since you won't accept English dictionary definitions, and I gave it.

I also think on the subject of lying, there would be more to find. Are we to obtain God's complete direction on lying from one verse? Is that all there is?

I'm on the side that is against all lying. There are plenty of verses on this. The Hebrew word for lie, lying, liar occurs 16 times in the OT, none of them positively. There is much more in the NT, such as that Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44), all liars will be in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8), etc.

I would tend to lean that way.

Are there times it is justifiable? Well, I think that Samuel verse points that way. Rahab did it.

Will I ever lie again? Sure. Will I feel bad about it? Depends on the lie I suppose. I'm saved by the grace of God though, and I do my best to be truthful.

But if someone pointed a gun at my wife's head and the only way I thought she could be spared would be to lie, I'd lie in a heartbeat. If I had been one of those kids at Columbine, I'm not sure I could've done what they did.

 

[gb93433]

I would ask is there a difference between lying to God and lying to man by itself.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

I would ask is there a difference between lying to God and lying to man by itself.

I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying here, sorry.

 

[gb93433]

I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying here, sorry.

I would assume that lying to God accomplishes nothing but to lie to man may serve a purpose that honors God. That is the distinction I see.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

I would assume that lying to God accomplishes nothing but to lie to man may serve a purpose that honors God. That is the distinction I see.

I don't disagree with you here.


But that was never my question to begin with. Mine was in what constitutes a lie (or being dishonest). Not if it is right/wrong/justified.

 

[John of Japan]

I also think on the subject of lying, there would be more to find. Are we to obtain God's complete direction on lying from one verse? Is that all there is?

There are many more verses on lying, probably well over 150. ("Liar" = 13 times, NT "to lie" = 12 times, etc.) But it takes solid study to put together a complete picture of lying in the Bible. I doubt if anyone is going to take the trouble to do that on this thread. I've not personally studied every passage, but I've studied enough and thought enough about the subject to be comfortably that I'm being biblical.

Are there times it is justifiable? Well, I think that Samuel verse points that way. Rahab did it.

I've answered the Samuel verse already, and was not refuted on it. (See post #16.) As for Rahab, God did not commend her lying. What God did commend was her having faith enough to hide the spies (Josh. 6:17&25, Heb. 11:31.)

And there was another way for her to accomplish her purpose without lying--misdirection. It is also worth nothing that she did not yet have a Jewish system of morality and ethics. For us to use Rahab as our example for action is to use a heathen system of ethics.

Will I ever lie again? Sure. Will I feel bad about it? Depends on the lie I suppose. I'm saved by the grace of God though, and I do my best to be truthful.

But if someone pointed a gun at my wife's head and the only way I thought she could be spared would be to lie, I'd lie in a heartbeat. If I had been one of those kids at Columbine, I'm not sure I could've done what they did.

You have the promise of God that you will never be in a situation where the only way out is to lie: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (1 Cor. 10:13)

 

[Don]

I would assume that lying to God accomplishes nothing but to lie to man may serve a purpose that honors God. That is the distinction I see.

"I lied in order to honor God."

Have to give that one some thought.

 

[Don]

If I had been one of those kids at Columbine, I'm not sure I could've done what they did.

Before I say anything else - are you talking about Klebold asking Valeen Schnurr if she believed in God?
(original reports, and some persistant internet stories, claim it was Cassie Bernall; subsequent interviews with other students indicate it was Klebold and Schnurr)

If so, did you just say that if someone asked you if you believed in God, and fearful for your life, you'd consider saying "No"?

 

[Skandelon]

If lying for a good cause is okay, what other sins are or are not okay if done for a good cause?

"All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial." You can't earn points when you are playing with someone who isn't keeping score. God is not keeping score. It's not about rule keeping with him, its about your character, your heart. We are not under the law. We are under grace.

Work with me here. You're still giving a hypothetical. Was the lying false witness, a plain lie, or what is sometimes called a "white lie"?

I don't view lies in categories, so I'm not sure how to answer this question. To me it is a heart issue. Rahab lied to prevent the pagan soldiers from finding and killing the Israelite spies because she had faith in Israel's God. Her heart was pure and what she did was in faith. If she would have lied because they paid her then she would have been acting out of greed, not faith. Anything not done in faith is sin, not just lying.

Not at all. I was not attacking you but expressing admiration for the debating I've seen you do here on the BB (as I PMed you once), and hoping you'd raise your level on this thread.

Both flattery and criticism fall under the fallacy of Ad Hominem.

You wrote, "Come on, Skandelon, you are capable of much better debating than this. This is a ridiculous paragraph," which is not a question, but a statement implying that I'm not debating you well and that my paragraphs are 'ridiculous,' thus you have moved from discussing the topic of God's hatred for all lies to my debating/writing skills, or lack there of. Don't worry, I wasn't offended by what you said, I just merely pointed out the fallacy so that you would recognize it for what it was and stop....and because I didn't want to resort to such things with you because I know you are too intelligent for that. (see I can use flattery too )

Once again, you appear to be giving the exact position of situation ethics--if it is done for a good reason, the deed is okay. Please tell me how your position differs from that of Joseph Fletcher.

Not to be dismissive, but I really don't care what Fletcher thinks, because I'm having a discussion with you, not him. Just deal with what I think and if you'd like to insert a quote from someone to support your view that's fine, I'll consider it, but I really don't want to go read a bunch of philosophical arguments about situational ethics. Sorry.

I'm willing to have a good discussion. But I believe you have made it personal by accusations of "ad hominem" when I simply asked questions--exactly what you did.

Neither of the quotes I marked as Ad Hominem were questions, but let's move past that, okay?

 

[John of Japan]

"All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial." You can't earn points when you are playing with someone who isn't keeping score. God is not keeping score. It's not about rule keeping with him, its about your character, your heart. We are not under the law. We are under grace.

Does this mean that there are no rights and wrongs? Of course not! There are plenty of prohibitions in the NT, plenty of statements of right and wrong. In fact, the context of your quote, v. 8 of 1 Cor. 6, Paul clearly says, "Ye do wrong." So Paul's statement "all things are permissible" does not mean there is nothing wrong in and of itself.

Your view appears similar to Swindoll's The Grace Awakening, famous for teaching that all rules are wrong. I find that view very lacking. He states that positiion while going to a church that has a constitution. It's an illogical view.

I don't view lies in categories, so I'm not sure how to answer this question. To me it is a heart issue. Rahab lied to prevent the pagan soldiers from finding and killing the Israelite spies because she had faith in Israel's God. Her heart was pure and what she did was in faith. If she would have lied because they paid her then she would have been acting out of greed, not faith. Anything not done in faith is sin, not just lying.

Personally, I'm not going to take Rahab, a heathen with no knowledge of Biblical ethical teachigns at the time of conversion, as a model for my Christianity. As I said in another post, the only thing she was praised for in the Bible was her faith.

Both flattery and criticism fall under the fallacy of Ad Hominem.

I did not use flattery. I was sincere.

You wrote, "Come on, Skandelon, you are capable of much better debating than this. This is a ridiculous paragraph," which is not a question, but a statement implying that I'm not debating you well and that my paragraphs are 'ridiculous,' thus you have moved from discussing the topic of God's hatred for all lies to my debating/writing skills, or lack there of. Don't worry, I wasn't offended by what you said, I just merely pointed out the fallacy so that you would recognize it for what it was and stop....and because I didn't want to resort to such things with you because I know you are too intelligent for that. (see I can use flattery too )

Sorry, calling your post ridiculous was not ad hominem ("to the man"). I did not question your character, only gave an opinion of your post--one which I stand by.

Not to be dismissive, but I really don't care what Fletcher thinks, because I'm having a discussion with you, not him. Just deal with what I think and if you'd like to insert a quote from someone to support your view that's fine, I'll consider it, but I really don't want to go read a bunch of philosophical arguments about situational ethics. Sorry.

Fine. Then answer my question about what sins are allowed to justify the end.

Neither of the quotes I marked as Ad Hominem were questions, but let's move past that, okay?

Sure.

 

[Skandelon]

Does this mean that there are no rights and wrongs? Of course not! There are plenty of prohibitions in the NT, plenty of statements of right and wrong. In fact, the context of your quote, v. 8 of 1 Cor. 6, Paul clearly says, "Ye do wrong." So Paul's statement "all things are permissible" does not mean there is nothing wrong in and of itself.

I agree. That which is not 'beneficial' would fit in the 'wrong' category, but ALL things fit in the permissible category because those under Grace are not judged for what they do or don't do, they are judged by the righteousness of Christ imputed on their behalf.

Personally, I'm not going to take Rahab, a heathen with no knowledge of Biblical ethical teachigns at the time of conversion, as a model for my Christianity.

Yet, she is listed right after Moses and just before Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel in the 'hall of faith' of Hebrews 11.

"By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient."

Clearly the writer of this epistle under the inspiration of the Spirit thought her worthy to be listed amongst the 'great cloud of witnesses that have gone before us' by which we might follow and be encouraged. Plus, the point is not whether she is a model for ethics, the question is how God viewed her lie.

As I said in another post, the only thing she was praised for in the Bible was her faith.
I did not use flattery. I was sincere.
Sorry, calling your post ridiculous was not ad hominem ("to the man"). I did not question your character, only gave an opinion of your post--one which I stand by.

You don't have to question my character for it to be classified as Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem is when the topic changes from the view being addressed to the person. You stopped discussing lying and starting discussing my lacking debate skills, which is ironic really since you resorted to a debate fallacy to critic my debate skill. :laugh:

Fine. Then answer my question about what sins are allowed to justify the end.

I think I did. "ALL THINGS are PERMISSIBLE..." When you say 'allowed' what do you mean? I know you don't believe that someone who sins loses their salvation. And you've already said you don't think God 'smites' us. So, what do you mean by allowed? Do you mean that God won't let it happen? I wouldn't think so. It seems like all you possibly COULD mean is that it wouldn't be beneficial, or advisable. It would be the unwise, or wrong, thing to do. Right? So, are we really saying anything different here?

It seems like you may just have an issue with the word 'permissible.' Permissible doesn't mean 'right' or 'good' or 'wise.' It simply means permitted. You know about God's permissive will, right? He permits sin, right? That is all Paul is saying. He is permitted (not prevented) to sin, and do the wrong thing, but it wouldn't be beneficial or wise. It was beneficial and a display of true faith for Rahab to lie about the spies. That is all I'm saying.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree. That which is not 'beneficial' would fit in the 'wrong' category, but ALL things fit in the permissible category because those under Grace are not judged for what they do or don't do, they are judged by the righteousness of Christ imputed on their behalf.

It is a basic exegetical rule that we must interpret Scripture with Scripture. You are not doing this. For example, Christ ratified all of the Decalogue but the Sabbath law. Furthermore, He did this at a higher level than the OT, that of the inner motive. Therefore, Christ would not agree that all sins are "expedient."

As for Christians not being "judged" for sin, we are not judged in eternity for sin, be we are chastised for it down here (Heb. 12).

Again, Paul clearly delineated sin as wrong in many places. Therefore it is clear that in 1 Cor. 6 Paul was not including sin. In fact, Paul clearly taught against "all things" including sin as being lawful: "And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just" (Rom. 3:8). It could not be clearer that Paul was against committing sin for a good end, "the end justifies the means."

Again, Paul wrote, "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21). This is a clear teaching that would negate using evil to overcome evil. There are many more Scriptures that I could give, but I think these are unarguably against using lies to accomplish good.

Yet, she is listed right after Moses and just before Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel in the 'hall of faith' of Hebrews 11.

"By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient."

Clearly the writer of this epistle under the inspiration of the Spirit thought her worthy to be listed amongst the 'great cloud of witnesses that have gone before us' by which we might follow and be encouraged. Plus, the point is not whether she is a model for ethics, the question is how God viewed her lie.

Her ethics obviously included lying for a good cause. God nowhere praised her lie. He condemned it as something He hates. You'll not find in Scripture where anything but her faith was praised--along with Samson (is he someone you want to imitate in anything but faith?).

I think I did. "ALL THINGS are PERMISSIBLE..." When you say 'allowed' what do you mean? I know you don't believe that someone who sins loses their salvation. And you've already said you don't think God 'smites' us. So, what do you mean by allowed? Do you mean that God won't let it happen? I wouldn't think so. It seems like all you possibly COULD mean is that it wouldn't be beneficial, or advisable. It would be the unwise, or wrong, thing to do. Right? So, are we really saying anything different here?

By "allowed" (Gr. existin), Paul clearly was not saying that sin, that immorality is allowed. I've already pointed out how in the immediate context Paul condemned a lawsuit against a brother as "wrong." In the verse immediately following 1 Cor. 6:12 Paul rails against fornication. So in the immediate context of the verse you are using Paul opposes various kinds of sin.

A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures: "Apparently this proverb may have been used by Paul in Corinth (repeated in 1Co 10:23), but not in the sense now used by Paul's opponents. The 'all things' do not include such matters as those condemned in chapter 1Co 5:1-13; 6:1-11. Paul limits the proverb to things not immoral, things not wrong per se."

Check your commentaries. I'm sure you'll find none to agree with you.

It seems like you may just have an issue with the word 'permissible.' Permissible doesn't mean 'right' or 'good' or 'wise.' It simply means permitted. You know about God's permissive will, right? He permits sin, right? That is all Paul is saying. He is permitted (not prevented) to sin, and do the wrong thing, but it wouldn't be beneficial or wise. It was beneficial and a display of true faith for Rahab to lie about the spies. That is all I'm saying.

No, I believe I've proven above that Paul is NOT saying he is permitted to sin. He is not talking about sin at all in that verse. He specifically says elsewhere that he does not believe in sinning to produce a good result, as I've quoted. Paul would not have agreed with you that "it was beneficial and a display of true faith for Rahab to lie about the spies." I know I certainly don't. "It is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right" (Bob Jones Sr.). There is always a better way. God always gives a way to escape from temptation.

 

[Skandelon]

It is a basic exegetical rule that we must interpret Scripture with Scripture. You are not doing this. For example, Christ ratified all of the Decalogue but the Sabbath law. Furthermore, He did this at a higher level than the OT, that of the inner motive. Therefore, Christ would not agree that all sins are "expedient."

I don't remember speaking of sin's expedience.

As for Christians not being "judged" for sin, we are not judged in eternity for sin, be we are chastised for it down here (Heb. 12).

And yet Rahab was not chastised for her lie, but instead listed as a person of faith because of what she did in faith.

Again, Paul clearly delineated sin as wrong in many places.

Again, may I remind you that I'm not arguing against the 'wrongness' of sin, I'm arguing against the concept that all deception is sin.

Therefore it is clear that in 1 Cor. 6 Paul was not including sin.

Really? Could have fooled me:

12 "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."​

What could "master us" if not sin?
Is sexual immorality not sin?

"And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just" (Rom. 3:8). It could not be clearer that Paul was against committing sin for a good end, "the end justifies the means."

Talk about context. Paul is simply condemning those who think, "The more evil we do, the more good God does, so let's just do it!" Again, I'm not arguing against the wrongness of sin, as you appear to think. I'm arguing against calling what Rahab did a sin, so you are kind of begging the question by presuming the lie in that context and for that motive is sinful, since it is the point up for debate.

Again, Paul wrote, "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21). This is a clear teaching that would negate using evil to overcome evil.

See, you're doing it again by presuming Rahab's deception was evil. I would say she overcame evil by a courageous, heroic act of faith and so would the writer of Hebrews.

He condemned it as something He hates.

He condemned the sin of lying, but he doesn't specifically address the context of Rahab's lie as being something he hated.

You'll not find in Scripture where anything but her faith was praised

And just what action do you think she did in faith?

What act did Abraham do in faith? He raised a knife to murder his child and would have done so had he not been stopped. That is intent to murder. Where is the condemnation for that sinful act?

Check your commentaries. I'm sure you'll find none to agree with you.

Not so.

No, I believe I've proven above that Paul is NOT saying he is permitted to sin. He is not talking about sin at all in that verse.

What else could he be mastered by if not sin?

He specifically says elsewhere that he does not believe in sinning to produce a good result, as I've quoted.

And again, you're begging the question by presuming what Rahab did was sinful...

Paul would not have agreed with you that "it was beneficial and a display of true faith for Rahab to lie about the spies." I know I certainly don't. "It is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right" .

Question begging: You once again assume the point up for debate. Was it WRONG for Rahab to deceive the soldiers. That is the point up for debate. You are arguing the wrong point. Still sure my debate skill is lacking?