Ethics Question

[HeirofSalvation]

John:

The story is told of Corrie Ten Boom's sister, who, because of the same kind of kink in her think, used words that were technically correct to describe the location of the Jews hidden in her house, but the clear intent was to make the Nazi police believe otherwise. She said the family was hiding under the table. In reality, they were in the cellar, the door of which was covered with a rug under the table. The police thought they were being mocked, and that was the meaning and intent of her sister's words.

I would like to have you comment on this...how would you describe this situation.....Was Corrie's sister the more righteous one?

noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one. 3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

This... I think is what you would merely call a "mis-direction"
and yet you make this statement:

And this proves to me that you have invented your own definition of lying, like others on this thread. I see no need to interact with you in that case. It's impossible to communicate and debate without using the commonly accepted definitions based on common usage of a word in our society. Sayonara.

I did wonder why, with such a simple and common word, you chose to post one and only one of the numerous definitions for most words That any given dictionary will supply.

Thought I might as well supply this from Roget's.....

Synonyms: aspersion, backbiting, calumniation, calumny, deceit, deception, defamation, detraction, dishonesty, disinformation, distortion, evasion, fable, fabrication, falsehood, falseness, falsification, falsity, fib, fiction, forgery, fraudulence, guile, hyperbole, inaccuracy, invention, libel, mendacity, misrepresentation, misstatement, myth, obloquy, perjury, prevarication, revilement, reviling, slander, subterfuge, tale, tall story, vilification, white lie, whopper

 

[freeatlast]

I do not see hiding the Jews as saving their own skin but rather protecting the officers and the Jews. To have not hidden anyone would have put them at no risk. Their actions protected the Jews from physical harm and the officers from harm later especially if they became believers and had to deal with their actions much the same way as an abortionist doctor would.

There is nothing wrong or sinful with hiding the Jews. There is no command not to hide Jews.

 

[gb93433]

There is nothing wrong or sinful with hiding the Jews. There is no command not to hide Jews.

Would you say there was a problem when the officers came to the door of those hiding them and asked if they were hiding anyone?

 

[Don]

Did Rahab lie? Can one have faith and lie?

Of course. How many threads have we seen on this board where we discuss that saved people can occasionally sin?

It makes me different than the enemy because it may mean that we enable Satan to destroy if we give him what he wants. He will distort truth to get what he wants. When people hid the Jews were they being dishonest? They certainly were taking a risk in helping people they could have disregarded.

If Satan will distort truth in order to get what he wants, doesn't that mean we need to strive that much harder to ensure people know the truth? That we need to fight that much harder against untruth? And what will happen if/when people find out that you've lied? Will they wonder how much more of what you've told them was a lie? Does everything you now say get questioned? How do we trust that that was the only lie?

 

[freeatlast]

Would you say there was a problem when the officers came to the door of those hiding them and asked if they were hiding anyone?

I would say all lies are sin.

 

[Skandelon]

Your accusation is technically not theologically legalism, but biblioloatry, an accusation leveled by liberals at the Princeton theologians (J. Gresham Machen, B. B. Warfield and others) for their doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration. Based first of all on theopneustos ("God breathed") in 2 Tim. 3:16, but also many other passages, I stand with verbal plenary inspiration in this discussion. Condemn it all you want.

Fallacy: Guilt by association. We are not debating verbal plenary inspiration and I'm not condemning that view. We are debating you putting of the law above the Law-giver. As pointed out, and ignored, had Abraham done so, he would have failed God's test...

You've not been paying attention, perhaps because of the emotional equation. I was literally shocked to read you think I am equating you with Clinton. That could not be further from the truth. And I've not been accusing you or Rahab of false witness either. Aaron has completely mis-characterized my argument. False witness is the worst kind of lie, as I have said, something that can ruin the life of another, and is different from and worse than simply not telling the truth.

In my thinking, a sin is a sin. Evil is evil. You are equating my 'lie' while smuggling bibles with every other evil lie by calling it 'sin.' That is what I'm addressing. Either its evil or it isn't. I say what Rahab did wasn't evil, you do. I say what I do when smuggling bibles isn't evil, you do. You may find it to be 'less evil' but what is 'less evil' in God's economy? Either an act is an offense against God or it isn't. Clearly Rahab's and Elisha's "lies" (misdirections or whatever you want to call them) were not an offense against God since he commends their actions. They were not sin. They were not evil, period.

I see. So you can have a presupposition that Rahab's lie was righteous and that's fine, but if I have a presupposition that her lie was not righteous, then that is question begging.

No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm arguing for my view by the use of scripture, just like you are. So for either of us to imply that the other isn't 'trusting the very words of the Bible' (as you did) is question begging, because we are both trusting the words of the Bible as we interpret them. We are arguing for our interpretation. This is debate 101...

 

[freeatlast]

I answered your question by stating that it is not a proper question. It completely disregards scripture.

So how does lying not disregard scripture as well?

 

[Skandelon]

For example, if a man holds a gun on me, I can say, "Please, I hate it when someone puts a gun to my head."

But, you are making that statement in hopes that he will hold the gun to your head because you know you have a better chance to disarm him when he does. So, you have tricked him by telling you hate something that you really desire for him to do.

Now, suppose the roles are reversed. Suppose a criminal breaks into a home of an innocent man who is not trained in martial arts, but the home owner gets his gun and stops the man before he gets away. Now, suppose the criminal says, "Please, I hate it when someone puts a gun to my head." or "Hey, what's that over there?!" And it causes the homeowner to be 'misdirected,' so that the criminal can disarm the man and continue his escape.

No one would claim that what the criminal did was not sinful. His crime was sinful, his 'misdirection' to disarm the homeowner was sinful and his escape was sinful. What made it sinful? His intent. That is the point here. You can call it 'misdirection' but still if it is done for a wrong or evil motive it is SIN.

 

[gb93433]

So how does lying not disregard scripture as well?

Ask yourself is there a difference between the spirit of the Law and the letter of the Law? Jesus addressed that in the Sermon On The Mount.

Do you think that a deceived man would thank you for allowing him to continue in his deception when he becomes a believer? That is a serious problem we have in the church today.

Is Proverbs 22:6 a principle or a promise?

If someone came to your door and asked if you were hiding Jews and if you told them you were you knew it meant their death would you lie to them and honor God or tell them the truth and dishonor God? Which is the higher calling of God?

I doubt anyone would ever come to me after they were saved and be ungrateful that I saved them from the horror of killing Christians because I lied to them and honored God by not telling them where they were because they were deceived.

The legalist would fulfill the letter of the law and forget the spirit of the law. The strange thing is that from what I have seen in business is that we often find the legalist to be the most dishonest.

 

[Don]

Is Proverbs 22:6 a principle or a promise?

What does training up a child in the way he should go have to do with this discussion?

 

[gb93433]

What does training up a child in the way he should go have to do with this discussion?

It has to do with correct interpretation. If you ignore a very basic understanding behind scripture then you ignore God.

 

[Don]

Ask yourself is there a difference between the spirit of the Law and the letter of the Law? Jesus addressed that in the Sermon On The Mount.

Do you think that a deceived man would thank you for allowing him to continue in his deception when he becomes a believer? That is a serious problem we have in the church today.

Is Proverbs 22:6 a principle or a promise?

If someone came to your door and asked if you were hiding Jews and if you told them you were you knew it meant their death would you lie to them and honor God or tell them the truth and dishonor God? Which is the higher calling of God?

I doubt anyone would ever come to me after they were saved and be ungrateful that I saved them from the horror of killing Christians because I lied to them and honored God by not telling them where they were because they were deceived.

The legalist would fulfill the letter of the law and forget the spirit of the law. The strange thing is that from what I have seen in business is that we often find the legalist to be the most dishonest.

I think the thing not addressed here is that there is a third option: Give yourself in their place.

Why is it that the "non-legalist" keeps looking for justification to lie?

You'll have to explain further: how is telling a lie honoring God? How is telling the truth ever dishonoring to God?

Do you have no trust that God will work the situation to His will and His way? "God wants me to lie" is a slippery, slippery slope my friend. First it's about bibles; then who knows what? At what point does the foundation of whatever you're trying to build for God rest solely on nothing but lies?

 

[Don]

It has to do with correct interpretation. If you ignore a very basic understanding behind scripture then you ignore God.

Was Rahab promised salvation for lying? Or is the principle behind Rahab that if you lie, you'll be saved?

 

[John of Japan]

Well put. More should hear that bell. Thanks.

Recently I was challenged by something I read discussing the idea that the church has steered away from the study of historical Judaism during the time of Jesus and has replaced it with what I call a SYI theology. This has been happening for about one century. The idea being that personal experience and being enlightened is more important than anything else. I see that as having allowed personal experience to triumph over sound doctrine and practice. I have seen too many times when someone has told me or someone else, "God told me ______." When I knew it was wrong and not in accordance with what scripture teaches.

This is all very true. The only hope I see for America is true revival.

 

[John of Japan]

John:

I would like to have you comment on this...how would you describe this situation.....Was Corrie's sister the more righteous one?

First of all, I would not describe it as a lie. And the Nazis deceived themselves by their own foolishness. So this was clear misdirection by Corrie's sister, just like God commanded the Jewish army to misdirect the army of Ai at the second battle of Ai.

And there is no further information on this thread about whatever Corrie herself did. Did she lie? I don't know, I wasn't told. As to who was more righteous, I have no idea and am not a judge. Only God can judge righteousness.

noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one. 3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

I did wonder why, with such a simple and common word, you chose to post one and only one of the numerous definitions for most words That any given dictionary will supply.

First of all, in any dictionary the first definition is the core meaning. So that's the only I supplied. Why is that wrong?

Secondly, definition two is a metaphorical usage of the word "lie," not the core meaning. So I did nothing wrong by not including it. I stand by my own definition of a lie as a false communication designed to deceive.

Thought I might as well supply this from Roget's.....

Synonyms: aspersion, backbiting, calumniation, calumny, deceit, deception, defamation, detraction, dishonesty, disinformation, distortion, evasion, fable, fabrication, falsehood, falseness, falsification, falsity, fib, fiction, forgery, fraudulence, guile, hyperbole, inaccuracy, invention, libel, mendacity, misrepresentation, misstatement, myth, obloquy, perjury, prevarication, revilement, reviling, slander, subterfuge, tale, tall story, vilification, white lie, whopper

Um, Roget's is a thesaurus, not a dictionary. Dictionaries are compiled by examining the usage of a certain word in the language through books, newspapers, magazines, radio and the like. The meaning of a word is then described based on that information. A thesaurus is not compiled that way, therefore is not considered an authority in semantics by scholars.

 

[Aaron]

And none of this thread has anything to do with false witness. The 9th commandment is not talking at all about what Rahab or the Hebrew midwives did, or what a Bible smuggler does. They did not commit false witness.

Of course it is. There is no falshood that is not touched on by the Ninth Commandment.

You probably think you go a day without breaking it.

 

[John of Japan]

Fallacy: Guilt by association. We are not debating verbal plenary inspiration and I'm not condemning that view. We are debating you putting of the law above the Law-giver. As pointed out, and ignored, had Abraham done so, he would have failed God's test...

My view on lying is based securely on my belief that the Bible is verbally inspired. Therefore, since the Bible says that God hates a lying tongue, I believe the Bible exactly as it says. Ergo, any lie is a sin.

In my thinking, a sin is a sin. Evil is evil. You are equating my 'lie' while smuggling bibles with every other evil lie by calling it 'sin.' That is what I'm addressing. Either its evil or it isn't. I say what Rahab did wasn't evil, you do. I say what I do when smuggling bibles isn't evil, you do. You may find it to be 'less evil' but what is 'less evil' in God's economy? Either an act is an offense against God or it isn't. Clearly Rahab's and Elisha's "lies" (misdirections or whatever you want to call them) were not an offense against God since he commends their actions. They were not sin. They were not evil, period.

So then you are upset at me because the position I take means that you have sinned? So? Why is this my problem? How does it negate my position?

And for the last time, God did not commend the lie of Rahab but her faith. Get it right. If you are defending your interpretation as you say, then exegete rightly. The Bible nowhere portrays God as commending a lie. Nowhere!

 

[Skandelon]

My view on lying is based securely on my belief that the Bible is verbally inspired. Therefore, since the Bible says that God hates a lying tongue, I believe the Bible exactly as it says. Ergo, any lie is a sin.

Unless you rename it 'misdirection,' and refer to is as a strategy of martial arts, right?

So then you are upset at me because the position I take means that you have sinned? So? Why is this my problem? How does it negate my position?

It doesn't negate your position, it only reveals if for what it is. It's a position that equates a faithful and heroic act of deception against the enemies of God (i.e. Rahab) with every other self-aggrandizing lying tongue. Any objective observer could see the difference.

And for the last time, God did not commend the lie of Rahab but her faith.

Her faith for doing what? HIDING THE SPIES!!!

God also commended Abraham's faith. Faith for doing what? Being willing to sacrifice his own son.

You can't separate the faith from the act of faith as if they are two different things. Had Rahab not hid the spies or Abraham not willingly offered his son as a sacrifice, they wouldn't have been called faithful to begin with...

Now, can you answer the question about your 'misdirection' examples and their motives?

 

[Skandelon]

Why is it that the "non-legalist" keeps looking for justification to lie?

Yeah, that is what we are doing. I'm just walking around all day looking to lie to dangerous, murdering enemies of God in order to take the gospel to the unreached so that I can put my life and freedom in danger. We just enjoy putting out lives and freedom in jeopardy by lying as much as possible to as many people as possible, so if only we could find some justification for our lies then it would be okay to go around risking our lives and lie as much as possible!

 

[Skandelon]

Was Rahab promised salvation for lying? Or is the principle behind Rahab that if you lie, you'll be saved?

No. The lesson is that if you believe in God, even at the risk of your own life and freedom, he will reward you. She deceived the enemies of God in order to serve God. I say she is a hero and so does the scriptures.