D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Nonsense.
bill betzler
New member
Nonsense because you have no verses to support your position??
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
No nonsense because the verses don't support yours.
bill betzler
New member
So Dee Dee, choose one of my wrong points and tell me why I'm wrong.
I would love to comment on this thread but Dee Dee has done it for me.
Great work Dee Dee!
If this thread were stomach acid you would represent the Alka Seltzer.
(whatever that meant
)
Great work Dee Dee!
If this thread were stomach acid you would represent the Alka Seltzer.
(whatever that meant
)
Last edited:
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Thank you Knight!!! I know that compliments from you are hard-earned, so I sincerely appreciate it. And here is a kiss for good measure :kiss:
1013
Post Modern Fundamentalist
rahab is obne of the heros of the faith listed somewhere in hebrews as a model of faith.
One of the prophets, either jerimaiah or ezekiel I believe, lied to save his skin from a hostile king. I can't remember which though.
cirisme, the midwives are only given praise. no judgement in scriptures is passed upon them for lieing whatsoever. only praise.
Jesus sumed up the law in two ways. Love God, and love your neighbor. If you lie to your neighbor about how you still have all that junk you borrowed from him in your garage, you are sinning and acting in a way that is contrary to Godly love. but the lie of the midwives was in no way a violation of Jesus' two all encompassing laws.
One of the prophets, either jerimaiah or ezekiel I believe, lied to save his skin from a hostile king. I can't remember which though.
cirisme, the midwives are only given praise. no judgement in scriptures is passed upon them for lieing whatsoever. only praise.
Jesus sumed up the law in two ways. Love God, and love your neighbor. If you lie to your neighbor about how you still have all that junk you borrowed from him in your garage, you are sinning and acting in a way that is contrary to Godly love. but the lie of the midwives was in no way a violation of Jesus' two all encompassing laws.
Please show where the midwives are given praise for LYING.
It does not happen.
I would like to point out that two liars were killed for one little lie each, namely Ananias and Sapphira.
I would also like to point out that nowhere in scripture is lying endorsed.
I would also like to point out, contra Dee Dee that there is no heirarchy of morals in terms of what sins are "ok" and which ones are not. All of them cut you off from God. God is totally pure and without sin. God is Holy. Therefore, God could NEVER endorse ANY kind of sin, it goes against His nature. If you disagree with me, read I John 1.
As for choosing between two sins, read I Corinthians 10:13
13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.
Sorry, but it does not fly that God would praise people for lying. Oh, as for Rahab, she is praised for her FAITH, not her lying. Bad example, that one.
It does not happen.
I would like to point out that two liars were killed for one little lie each, namely Ananias and Sapphira.
I would also like to point out that nowhere in scripture is lying endorsed.
I would also like to point out, contra Dee Dee that there is no heirarchy of morals in terms of what sins are "ok" and which ones are not. All of them cut you off from God. God is totally pure and without sin. God is Holy. Therefore, God could NEVER endorse ANY kind of sin, it goes against His nature. If you disagree with me, read I John 1.
As for choosing between two sins, read I Corinthians 10:13
13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.
Sorry, but it does not fly that God would praise people for lying. Oh, as for Rahab, she is praised for her FAITH, not her lying. Bad example, that one.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
You have completely misrepesented or misunderstood me Jaltus and I will prove it over the next few posts... hopefully. But you are absolutely incorrect.... and don't sic your Unitarian goon on me
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Liar, Liar??
Liar, Liar??
Okay Bill, I will take you up on proving your error, but this is going to take looking at the Bible and Christian ethics with more depth than a Chick tract. We were discussing the Hebrew midwives, and here is the text again:
Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?” And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.” Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.
It is a fact that this text specifically mentions that God blessed these women without any censure of their lie, and in fact specific commendation of their faith (i.e. they feared God). That would be odd indeed if their lie was grievous in the sight of God.
You have claimed that they were righteous only in saving the children but unrighteous in lying to the Pharaoh. In fact your position is that they should have just told the truth and trusted God to spare their lives. There is a honking inconsistency here and some loaded assumptions. First the assumptions… you are assuming that they lied to the Pharaoh merely to save their own lives. That may certainly be a reasonable assumption, but the text says nothing about their fear of Pharaoh but rather only their fear of God. In fact, if they had told the truth, the Pharaoh may just have turned around and found other midwives whom he could intimidate more. Instead, he simply gave the order to the people to voluntarily kill their own male children. Thus, the midwives may in fact have saved even more lives which could have been a motivating factor for them. The inconsistency lies in the fact that their lie is not their only “sin” in this passage if you are going to hold that there is not a hierarchy of morals in Christian ethics.
The Bible tells us to obey those placed in authority over us (Ecclesiastes 8:2; Romans 13). These texts do not give any “escape clause,” for all intents and purposes, in a superficial “low context” reading of the text, it is an unbreakable absolute. Yet not only is this highly counter-intuitive, it would cause a contradiction in the text, for in
Acts 5:29, we are told to obey God rather than man. Why didn’t Paul mention this condition?? Because in the “high context” Biblical structure and culture, it was obvious.
This brings us to the midwives once again. You are saying they were righteous in sparing the children, but then again, they disobeyed the “king.” Why was it okay to disobey the King in that situation?? Because a greater moral imperative was put upon them. It is the exact same situation with Rahab the harlot. She lied to save the Hebrew spies, and is commended for her faith in Hebrews 11:31 (and in Joshua 6:25) with no censure of her alleged immoral lie.
Now of course this leads us to ponder what is the definition of sinful lying. Is all lying inherently or equally sinful? Or is all lying immoral?? The fact is we all consider certain technical “lies” as morally benign, such as, for example, when a boxer fools his opponent into believing he will punch with one fist but instead lands the other. Most of us are deceptive about our true physical appearance by wearing cosmetics or other appearance-altering aids.
The fact is that the Bible does teach that not all sins are equal nor will all judgment be equal (John 19:11, Matthew 10 & 11). We also inherently know this as reflected by our laws. There are differing levels of crime and differing punishments. We also recognize the concept of mitigating circumstances.
So the Bible gives us pictures of real people in real situations. There is an absolute hierarchy of morals, and in any given situation we must weigh our nations and behavior by assessing our predicament in light of these absolutes. Some may call it choosing the lesser of two evils (lie or allow the spies to be killed), but the more Biblical outlook would be choosing the greater good (tell the truth or save the lives of the spies).
Liar, Liar??
Okay Bill, I will take you up on proving your error, but this is going to take looking at the Bible and Christian ethics with more depth than a Chick tract. We were discussing the Hebrew midwives, and here is the text again:
Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?” And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.” Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.
It is a fact that this text specifically mentions that God blessed these women without any censure of their lie, and in fact specific commendation of their faith (i.e. they feared God). That would be odd indeed if their lie was grievous in the sight of God.
You have claimed that they were righteous only in saving the children but unrighteous in lying to the Pharaoh. In fact your position is that they should have just told the truth and trusted God to spare their lives. There is a honking inconsistency here and some loaded assumptions. First the assumptions… you are assuming that they lied to the Pharaoh merely to save their own lives. That may certainly be a reasonable assumption, but the text says nothing about their fear of Pharaoh but rather only their fear of God. In fact, if they had told the truth, the Pharaoh may just have turned around and found other midwives whom he could intimidate more. Instead, he simply gave the order to the people to voluntarily kill their own male children. Thus, the midwives may in fact have saved even more lives which could have been a motivating factor for them. The inconsistency lies in the fact that their lie is not their only “sin” in this passage if you are going to hold that there is not a hierarchy of morals in Christian ethics.
The Bible tells us to obey those placed in authority over us (Ecclesiastes 8:2; Romans 13). These texts do not give any “escape clause,” for all intents and purposes, in a superficial “low context” reading of the text, it is an unbreakable absolute. Yet not only is this highly counter-intuitive, it would cause a contradiction in the text, for in
Acts 5:29, we are told to obey God rather than man. Why didn’t Paul mention this condition?? Because in the “high context” Biblical structure and culture, it was obvious.
This brings us to the midwives once again. You are saying they were righteous in sparing the children, but then again, they disobeyed the “king.” Why was it okay to disobey the King in that situation?? Because a greater moral imperative was put upon them. It is the exact same situation with Rahab the harlot. She lied to save the Hebrew spies, and is commended for her faith in Hebrews 11:31 (and in Joshua 6:25) with no censure of her alleged immoral lie.
Now of course this leads us to ponder what is the definition of sinful lying. Is all lying inherently or equally sinful? Or is all lying immoral?? The fact is we all consider certain technical “lies” as morally benign, such as, for example, when a boxer fools his opponent into believing he will punch with one fist but instead lands the other. Most of us are deceptive about our true physical appearance by wearing cosmetics or other appearance-altering aids.
The fact is that the Bible does teach that not all sins are equal nor will all judgment be equal (John 19:11, Matthew 10 & 11). We also inherently know this as reflected by our laws. There are differing levels of crime and differing punishments. We also recognize the concept of mitigating circumstances.
So the Bible gives us pictures of real people in real situations. There is an absolute hierarchy of morals, and in any given situation we must weigh our nations and behavior by assessing our predicament in light of these absolutes. Some may call it choosing the lesser of two evils (lie or allow the spies to be killed), but the more Biblical outlook would be choosing the greater good (tell the truth or save the lives of the spies).
bill betzler
New member
Dee Dee,
As I mentioned earlier God pays for services rendered. See Ezekiel below. And He pays good. Now do you want to assume that Nebuchadnezzar and all his army never lied during these campaigns?
Ezekiel
29:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:
29:19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.
29:20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labor wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.
I'll answer more later. This story is actually a good case study on "two masters," not the first part but the second not so often quoted part.
bill
As I mentioned earlier God pays for services rendered. See Ezekiel below. And He pays good. Now do you want to assume that Nebuchadnezzar and all his army never lied during these campaigns?
Ezekiel
29:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:
29:19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.
29:20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labor wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.
I'll answer more later. This story is actually a good case study on "two masters," not the first part but the second not so often quoted part.
bill
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Bill that is irrelevant to the point made. I am going to be taking a leave from TOL for a while, so if I don't respond further, that would be why.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
Dee Dee, Rahab is also commended for it as an action of faith in James.
bill betzler
New member
The account of the midwives is a good example of the words of Jesus when he said no man can serve two masters. And with a little thought you should be able to realize that truth and lies are two different masters. You cannot serve them both.
Matt
6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
The midwives are not shown to love God and hate pharaoh, but rather, because they feared God more than pharaoh they held to God (did what He wanted) and despised pharaoh by lying to him.
Rahab was no different. See saw the power of the Israelites that God had given them and decided to change sides. The person of flesh still trusted in the walls of Jericho and their men of valor.
The bigger story for the midwives and Rahab is that God intervened on the behalf of the Israelites. that is not to discount their faith, but also not to justify all of their actions.
Look at the story of the usurper Jacob and see if lying is justified or necessary to accomplish the will of God.
My post on Nebuchadnezzar shows that the employer pays the bills. The midwives did God's will by not killing the babies so God payed them. If they would have killed the babies then they would have been working for Pharaoh and he would have paid them.
Dee Dee, in the court room it is not sufficient to say you object without giving the reason why. Nonsense and irrelevant will not be sufficient to sway the judge to your side. Judges require a little more than that. You have given no verses to support your view. You may have an hierarchal theory but it will need support.
bill
Matt
6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
The midwives are not shown to love God and hate pharaoh, but rather, because they feared God more than pharaoh they held to God (did what He wanted) and despised pharaoh by lying to him.
Rahab was no different. See saw the power of the Israelites that God had given them and decided to change sides. The person of flesh still trusted in the walls of Jericho and their men of valor.
The bigger story for the midwives and Rahab is that God intervened on the behalf of the Israelites. that is not to discount their faith, but also not to justify all of their actions.
Look at the story of the usurper Jacob and see if lying is justified or necessary to accomplish the will of God.
My post on Nebuchadnezzar shows that the employer pays the bills. The midwives did God's will by not killing the babies so God payed them. If they would have killed the babies then they would have been working for Pharaoh and he would have paid them.
Dee Dee, in the court room it is not sufficient to say you object without giving the reason why. Nonsense and irrelevant will not be sufficient to sway the judge to your side. Judges require a little more than that. You have given no verses to support your view. You may have an hierarchal theory but it will need support.
bill
I would like to point out that everyone is assuming that the midwives lied. It could in fact be true that many of the Hebrew women gave birth early. The Bible does not say that they are wrong, it just records what they said.
Mind you, the women could be hiding behind making a general claim and using it for specific cases it was not necessarily true for, which is misleading but not a lie.
Mind you, the women could be hiding behind making a general claim and using it for specific cases it was not necessarily true for, which is misleading but not a lie.
C
cirisme
Guest
Jaltus, good job.
:thumb:
:thumb:
bill betzler
New member
“When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive."
Actually the scriptures are quite clear pertaining to the duty of the Hebrew midwives.
"When you see them on the birthstools"
If the midwives did not see them on the birthstool then they would not have disobeyed Pharoah. The scriptures say they
"did not do as the king of Egypt commanded."
Therefore they did see the women on the birthstools.
Actually the scriptures are quite clear pertaining to the duty of the Hebrew midwives.
"When you see them on the birthstools"
If the midwives did not see them on the birthstool then they would not have disobeyed Pharoah. The scriptures say they
"did not do as the king of Egypt commanded."
Therefore they did see the women on the birthstools.