ARCHIVE: Lying is never righteous!

[Hank]

Dee Dee I have answers for your previous post but my time is limited and I would like to get back to trying to tie down an absolute. So I am going to repeat what I asked you before and hope for an answer.

You and Knight have brought up the question about lying about being a Christian when your life is in danger. I have used the issue of denying Christ as a specific lie. I have also used the case of your life being in danger as being a specific event. I am trying to get to the basic issue of your definition of absolute morality being the same response to the same situation.

Your quote:

Relativism teaches that morals are relative to the person. In any given identical situation, what is moral for you to do, may not be moral for me to do. There is no absolute rule by which to objectively measure our actions. That is not at all what I have advocated here. I am applying an ABSOLUTE hierarchy of morals which would be applied ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENTLY. As Koukl has put it, “Moral relativism doesn’t have to do with relative circumstances, it has to do with relative people,” and this distinction makes a world of difference, i.e. the difference between Biblical and unbiblical moral functioning. Biblical morality upholds a standard that is outside of and binding upon all persons.

Now I am trying to tie down an “identical situation” as you described and a specific moral action “lie about being a Christian” so we can discuss your definition of absolute morality. Can you tell me why this would not be an “identical situation” with a specific lie that would not apply to every person?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Hank:
I have already stated that I am not going to go round and round on exploring every possible scenario on that one specific issue. A whole new thread has been dedicated to that subject by Freak.

You and Knight have brought up the question about lying about being a Christian when your life is in danger. I have used the issue of denying Christ as a specific lie. I have also used the case of your life being in danger as being a specific event.

Mischaracterization. Knight’s example was about protecting his family.

I am trying to get to the basic issue of your definition of absolute morality being the same response to the same situation.

No, you are trying to now go ad nauseam into differing situations to pinpoint a dividing line about when it would be moral and when it would not be moral. And I have already said that I have not devoted deep thought to this particular situation. To continue to hoe this row is meaningless. Even if at this point, because I have not devoted sufficient intellectual time to pondering the various scenarios, could not define for you the parameters, that does not mean there are none or I have sunk into relativism. It just means that I have not discovered them yet. For the moral absolutes are not invented or defined, but are like mathematics, they are discovered. I have no interest in pursuing discovering the parameters for that particular moral situation. It is an overly emotional red herring. I am interested in discussing whether in Biblical morality it is ever righteous to lie, which is the topic of this thread. I am going to discuss the misuse of Matthew 10 and Luke 12 on Freak’s thread.

 

[Hank]

Hi Dee Dee

No, you are trying to now go ad nauseam into differing situations to pinpoint a dividing line about when it would be moral and when it would not be moral. And I have already said that I have not devoted deep thought to this particular situation. To continue to hoe this row is meaningless. Even if at this point, because I have not devoted sufficient intellectual time to pondering the various scenarios, could not define for you the parameters, that does not mean there are none or I have sunk into relativism. It just means that I have not discovered them yet. For the moral absolutes are not invented or defined, but are like mathematics, they are discovered. I have no interest in pursuing discovering the parameters for that particular moral situation. It is an overly emotional red herring. I am interested in discussing whether in Biblical morality it is ever righteous to lie, which is the topic of this thread. I am going to discuss the misuse of Matthew 10 and Luke 12 on Freak’s thread.

Well I hope you enjoyed getting whipped as much as I enjoyed giving it. You should have been smart like Knight and bailed out before things started getting specific. It’s easy to argue in the abstract but the devil is in the details as they say.

When we started I told you that this was a slippery slope. Sure enough you walked right into a corner you can’t get out of. The best part is I let you use your definition of absolute morality and your example of lying. But when you started trying to define an absolute on a sliding foundation I knew you were in trouble. LOL

I hope you have a great Thanksgiving.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Well Hank you can think what you want, and if you want to believe your own PR have at it. The fact is that the very specifics of the question you are posing is being discussed in that other thread that I had mentioned, so your claiming that Knight "bailed" is an unrighteous lie. Like I have already said, my only point to prove in this thread is that lying can be righteous which has more than been proven. If you want to argue that the one specific lie upon which you are focusing may never be righteous, that if fine, and even if you ever prove that one particular point, that does not prove the larger point... all it would prove is that one particular subject matter is inviolate. If you want to crow because I have readily admitted that the boundaries for the one particular scenario have not been thoroughly analyzed by me then you are manipulating the situation and being unfair, and fine, if that is the way you like to think you "win" it is a hollow alleged "victory."

If you really want to discuss the point, you would not focus on one issue where I have already stated that I need to spend more time in thought on (and my position has been that if I can envision at least one situation where such a denial would be moral, then we cannot say it is ALWAYS wrong - and I gave such a scenario in referring you to Knight's example). If you really wanted to discuss the issue you would ask me to define more broadly other situations where lying would be righteous and discuss the righteous lies of Rahab and the midwives.

I too hope you have a great TG.

PS: that was not MY example of lying.. it was a scenario posed by Knight and a subject matter pursued by Knight since he has obviously given it much more thought that I currently have (though I do agree thus far with his conclusions for that ONE specific scenario - while at the same time pondering the points made by others). MY examples have always been Rahab and the midwives... you should at least portray the conversation accurately Hank, or do you have to spin it that way to make you seem victorious??

 

[bill betzler]

Jaltus,

Yes, Hezekiah 3. You were not suppose to look it up.

 

[Hank]

Well Hank you can think what you want, and if you want to believe your own PR have at it. The fact is that the very specifics of the question you are posing is being discussed in that other thread that I had mentioned, so your claiming that Knight "bailed" is an unrighteous lie.

I’m glad you qualified it as an unrighteous lie instead of a righteous lie. LOL. A righteous lie just strikes me as funny. Sorry about that. Knight brought it up in this thread. You agreed that it was correct. Then he dropped it. In my book that makes what I said right. But then you can claim anything is a lie when you have a sliding scale for lying. LOL.

Like I have already said, my only point to prove in this thread is that lying can be righteous which has more than been proven. If you want to argue that the one specific lie upon which you are focusing may never be righteous, that if fine, and even if you ever prove that one particular point, that does not prove the larger point... all it would prove is that one particular subject matter is inviolate. If you want to crow because I have readily admitted that the boundaries for the one particular scenario have not been thoroughly analyzed by me then you are manipulating the situation and being unfair, and fine, if that is the way you like to think you "win" it is a hollow alleged "victory."

You are the one that brought up the “hierarchy of morals”. I just continued the discussion you started. And when I asked for us to just work with one case so you could define for me your “hierarchy of morals”, you couldn’t do it. It pointless to say something is absolute when you can’t even define what it is.
.

If you really want to discuss the point, you would not focus on one issue where I have already stated that I need to spend more time in thought on (and my position has been that if I can envision at least one situation where such a denial would be moral, then we cannot say it is ALWAYS wrong - and I gave such a scenario in referring you to Knight's example). If you really wanted to discuss the issue you would ask me to define more broadly other situations where lying would be righteous and discuss the righteous lies of Rahab and the midwives.

You can envision at least one situation where such a denial would be moral in your eyes alright but the point is you can’t define where it crosses from being moral to being immoral. That makes it a sliding scale that anyone can define any way they want. Everything is relative to the defining line.

I too hope you have a great TG.

Thank you

PS: that was not MY example of lying.. it was a scenario posed by Knight and a subject matter pursued by Knight since he has obviously given it much more thought that I currently have (though I do agree thus far with his conclusions for that ONE specific scenario - while at the same time pondering the points made by others). MY examples have always been Rahab and the midwives... you should at least portray the conversation accurately Hank, or do you have to spin it that way to make you seem victorious??

I know Knight gave the example but you agreed with it. Excuse me for assuming that if you agree with something I could use it as an example that you agreed with. LOL. Who needs spin when you gave me so much material to work with. LOL

I have really enjoyed the debate DD.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I hope you don't get dizzy from your spin session

I hope you don't get dizzy from your spin session

Dear Hank:

Sorry about that. Knight brought it up in this thread. You agreed that it was correct. Then he dropped it. In my book that makes what I said right.

You need to get a refund on that book. Knight did not drop it, he took the discussion to the thread that Freak dedicated the subject. You have been told this several times. Additionally whether or not someone drops a subject (which has not happened) is irrelevant as to whether you are right or not.

And when I asked for us to just work with one case so you could define for me your “hierarchy of morals”, you couldn’t do it.

Surely you understand the difference between "coudn't" and "wouldn't." I would not go down that road because of the profound respect that I have for the subject matter and felt that such a discussion was not proper as I have not given the whole scope the proper time in contemplation. For you to continue to pursue one particular area that I have said requires further reflection by me is a bully-ish and unfair tactic. I have stated uneqivocably here that lying can be righteous which is the subject matter under dispute. I can prove that, and Knight and I have proven that. You are using a diversion in a cheap way to try and claim victory in a debate. If that satisfies you, so be it.
I find it to be blatantly unfair.

 

[Hank]

You need to get a refund on that book. Knight did not drop it, he took the discussion to the thread that Freak dedicated the subject. You have been told this several times. Additionally whether or not someone drops a subject (which has not happened) is irrelevant as to whether you are right or not.

I’ll look into that refund . Hey I don’t understand why I should have to chase someone from one thread to another. Besides at the time he dropped it the other thread hadn’t started. And at the time I said that, no one had told me. But I’ll check it out. And whether I am right or not is relative, right? LOL

Surely you understand the difference between "coudn't" and "wouldn't." I would not go down that road because of the profound respect that I have for the subject matter and felt that such a discussion was not proper as I have not given the whole scope the proper time in contemplation. For you to continue to pursue one particular area that I have said requires further reflection by me is a bully-ish and unfair tactic.

Hey I use to use that tactic. When losing just say I can prove it I just don’t want to right now. My six year still does it. LOL

Okay time to drop this don't you think?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Hank:

I am further disappointed in what you have said and spun once again. If you wish to drop it, that is your choice. I am intending on still participating... with you if you choose, and if you choose not you, bless you and Godspeed.

 

[Hank]

DD I only wanted to drop it because I thought maybe I had gone too far in kidding you. Sometimes I use sarcasm as a way to make a point which is a poor way of making a point. I read all of the other post about denying Christ and was very impressed. In fact I wish I could debate as Solly and Avmetro did when they presented the true life example of the man that lost his family while witnessing for Christ. All along I have only been trying to say the standing up for principles no matter what is a powerful example that changes other people’s lives for the better. And when you sacrifice them for any reason, it may sound like the right thing to do but you loose the power of the example that can change the world in the long run as Jesus did.

If I have offended you it was not my intent.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hank, let me clue you in to something about me. I can take it as well as dish it out. If I ever got "offended" at something I will let you know clear as a bell, and I tend not to hold grudges. I do believe you have used unfair tactics... but then I countered them by pointing them out. That is how debates go. I don't agree that sarcasm is alwasy a poor way of making a point, sometimes it is a very good way, but the points you were making were unfair, and then of course, sarcasm only makes it worse. But again, that is the way debates go... I point them out, and we move on.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay I am back now to dealing with some of Jaltus’ points, and this requires some backtracking to very basic points made at the beginning of this discussion. I have posited that the lying condemned in the Bible must be limited by the entirety of the Bible itself. Jaltus has agreed with this in principle in discussing Romans 13 and other passages. Sinful lying is simply immoral deception. As I and Knight has said numerous times, not all deception is immoral. And the key word there is deception, for lying is much more than just the mere uttering of a statement that is not true. The intent of the speaker and the audience must be factored into account.
I will give some examples to prove my point.

Ciris at one point claimed to have Knight’s password. He did not intend to deceive anyone into thinking that he actually did have Knight’s password, nor was anyone actually deceived. However, he did speak an untruth. I don’t think anyone here would say that he was sinning. Jesting with an untrue statement of this sort is not the “lying” condemned in the Bible.

An actor is playing the part of a liar, the sort of liar that is condemned in the Bible that immorally deceives people. He speaks untruths as part of his role. Yet he is not sinning… he has no intent to actually deceive anyone, and the audience knows he is an actor. Acting a part that causes one to utter an utrue statement is not the “lying” condemned in the Bible.

A sports team calls out plays that they have no intention of running but instead have agreed ahead of time that they would substitute one play for another. They intend to deceive the other team, and the other team is in fact deceived. Yet this is not the “lying” condemned in the Bible.

A lady wears a very welldone wig to disguise her thinning hair. She intends to deceive people into thinking that is her appearance, and some people are actually deceived. Yet this is not the “lying” condemned in the Bible.

These few examples prove that we cannot be so simplistic to simply say that stating an untruth is the sin of lying. It simply is not. Nor can we be so simplistic to say that deception is the sin of lying. It also is not. It is immoral deception, and that must cause us to think more deeply as to why this sort of thing is condemned, and help us to make moral decisions about when deception is or is not sinful.
Immoral deception is condemned because it cheats the other person in some way and creates and injustice and inequity. It robs them of information that they had a right to know. Our English definitions bear this out:

To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; to say or do that which is intended to deceive another, when he a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation. (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)

There are times when morality DOES NOT require a just representation, as in the cases of Rahab and the Hebrew midwives, and I daresay Corrie Ten Boom.

Jaltus keeps claiming that the Biblical sin of lying requires that an untruth be utilized to deceive and that it is not sinful when a truth is used to deceive. That is just pure nonsense, and ignores the very reasons why certain deceptions are sinful… i.e. the cheating of the other person and the injustice caused. It ignores the fact that it is the intentions of the heart that is weighed in God’s balances (2 Samuel 16:7). Satan used Psalm 92, a true statement, in the temptations of Christ in an attempt to deceive and tempt Him.
I will bring up once again a scenario I used before to show how counterintuitive and self-defeating Jaltus’ position is…

Jaltus wants us to believe that deception is peachy with God as long as we manipulate a true statement to attain our deception. Again, I would not want anyone with that point of view as a business partner.

“Hey Jaltus, before I sign off on this contract, I see that the business has some outstanding debts. Have those been paid?”

“Dee Dee, I mailed out the checks to them this morning.” All the while knowing that the checks would bounce. Well you did not tell a falsehood now did you?? You did mail the checks, it was just that pesky little bit of information that you withheld from me that the mailed checks were worthless. But hey, according to you, this would not be immoral or a lie. This is just sheer nonsense.

 

[bill betzler]

I think one of the problems here is that lying and fraud are being commingled. Lying is a part of fraud, but fraud is larger in scope. You can defraud someone by not lying to them, whereas everytime you lie to someone you defraud them of the truth.

So in Dee Dee's business analogy fraud has been committed, but no lie.

 

[Hank]

Hank, let me clue you in to something about me. I can take it as well as dish it out. If I ever got "offended" at something I will let you know clear as a bell, and I tend not to hold grudges. I do believe you have used unfair tactics... but then I countered them by pointing them out. That is how debates go. I don't agree that sarcasm is alwasy a poor way of making a point, sometimes it is a very good way, but the points you were making were unfair, and then of course, sarcasm only makes it worse. But again, that is the way debates go... I point them out, and we move on.

You may think they are unfair but I didn’t see it that way. I saw it as just whining on your part because things didn’t go your way. You brought up a lot of points that I thought were irrelevant to the discussion as well as not responding to some of my questions. I could have said I thought you were being unfair but what would have been the point. You would have just countered that you didn’t see it that way.

I agree you can make points with sarcasm. I meant you seldom convince your opponent with sarcasm because it tends to create resentment.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

No resentment here (and in fact, when I am wrong, sarcasm can be quite effective with me since it gets my attention). And you can presume how I would have countered something, but you would be doing just that... presuming. There have been plenty of times when someone had said I was unfair, I examined their charges, and agreed with them and revised my answer. You seem to think no one ever changes their mind or can agree with charges from the opposing view.... I have seen it happen many times. I did not only just 'claim' you were unfair in some things, I gave my reasons for doing so.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

So in Dee Dee's business analogy fraud has been committed, but no lie.

And according to Jaltus that is not sinful. But I also disagree though that it was not a lie... reread the dictionary definitions once again, particular the one from Webster's that I posted.

 

[Hank]

Okay DD I’ll take a look as soon as I get some time.

I believe people change their minds. I said I had never seen anyone change their basic beliefs here. Maybe some have and I haven’t seen it. I have changed my mind about specific things but not my basic beliefs.

You also seem to think that just because you give a reason for something that makes it true. That is just not the case.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

You also seem to think that just because you give a reason for something that makes it true. That is just not the case.

No, and I am sorry if I gave that impression. But in fact, that is what you appeared to be doing at times. You have claimed that just becuase Knight dropped something (which I still maintain that he had not - he does not post here nearly as much as I do and then another thread was started that he jumped in on right away) that meant you were right.

And you mentioned that you have changed your mind aout specific things but not basic beleifs... well people here have changed basic beliefs... not often but it happens... and that gets into what you want to define as a basic belief. The radical change I had in eschatology.... and that I have seen others have in eschatology... what would that be?? I could argue both ways...

 

[Hank]

No, and I am sorry if I gave that impression. But in fact, that is what you appeared to be doing at times. You have claimed that just becuase Knight dropped something (which I still maintain that he had not - he does not post here nearly as much as I do and then another thread was started that he jumped in on right away) that meant you were right.

That was sarcasm DD I know that doesn’t make me right. However I did comment that I have been posting here a while and that the few times Knight has been involved in my comments, he jumped in right off the bat with sarcasm, made a few replies, then when I started getting specific he quit responding. The same thing happened on the other thread after the example of the Christian who sacrificed his family for his beliefs. How any Christian can question that example is a mystery to me. Have you every thought about why you feel it is necessary for you to defend Knight? Just a thought.

and you mentioned that you have changed your mind aout specific things but not basic beleifs... well people here have changed basic beliefs... not often but it happens... and that gets into what you want to define as a basic belief. The radical change I had in eschatology.... and that I have seen others have in eschatology... what would that be?? I could argue both ways...

Okay I’ll take your word for it. I don’t know exactly what you are talking about in your personal change so I can’t make a rational comment. I admitted that I just had not seen it myself but that I had not seen everything here of course.

I did mean to reply to one of your previous comments.

You basially reduced the meaning of the Biblical text to a subjective encounter with the Spirit, which ironically enough, makes your idea of absolutes that you think you believe are deriving from such a subjective encounter, relativistic!! For you have no grounds from which at all to say I am Biblically wrong, for my subjective encounter with the Spirit may just be different from yours, which is allowable in your worldview, thus, you are arguing for relativism (by definition) if we take your Biblical philosphy to its logical extent.

There is a difference between subjective and relativistic. All beliefs about God and the Bible are subjective. I assume that you believe that every word in the Bible is the inerrant word of God. But the Bible is merely a collection of books that the Catholic church decided was the word of God. For you to believe that is being subjective about what you want to believe. I agree what I believe is subjective, so is what you and everyone else believes. If you want to say that is relative to what everyone else believes then okay. But that does not mean I believe in relative morality. I am still saying that you are the one believing in relative morality because you can’t define a line between a particular situation where it moves from being moral to immoral. Can you define that line? And I'll take any situation you want to use.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Did I miss something?

What did I "drop"?

Please excuse me... I rarely post on weekends or holidays. I have two boys who play ice hockey and they keep me running on weekends and holidays. So please don't assume that if I don't respond to something that its because I have no answer.

I ALWAYS HAVE AN ANSWER!!!

I am only a "little" less obnoxious than Dee Dee (I mean that in a good way Dee Dee).

Hank can you clarify for me...

Are you a Christian?