ARCHIVE: Lying is never righteous!

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee said

Accoridng the Jaltus, you can decieve someone as long as you manipulate the truth to do it. The consummate politician's ploy.

That is a lie, or at least a very slanted version of what I actually said.

I say and said that you can use the truth to deceive (read "mislead") someone. I did not say you could "manipulate" the truth, which would again be lying according to my definition. Manipulating the truth would be telling an untruth. Sorry, Dee Dee, but that was blatant misrepresentation, using invective and loaded language to try to undercut my point. Can you really not debate me without resorting to such sad tactics?

 

[Jaltus]

SD,

So intentionally leading someone to believe something that isn't true, is not deception?

Jesus did not infact lead them to believe anything. Read the narrative again.

Luke 24:16 explicitly says:
16 but they were kept from recognizing him.

Jesus did not in fact do anything to deceive them. You are reading your stance into the text because the text itself DOES NOT SAY how or why they did not know Jesus.

As for your question about smuggling, as long as the smugglers do not lie, I have no problem with it (assuming it is done for the glory of God and not to make money or something, meaning the smuggling is done because the government outlawed the Bible).

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

A rose by any another name... you are manipulating the language to make your positon sound better. I have just cut through the crap.

 

[Jaltus]

Falsehood.

You envoke emotional and loaded language because you cannot in fact debate without doing so.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
A rose by any another name... you are manipulating the language to make your positon sound better. I have just cut through the crap.

And this has been PAINFULLY demonstrated on this thread.

 

[Jaltus]

edited

 

[Jerry Shugart]

During the Acts period,Paul told the Jews who were in the churches which he founded that they are no longer under the law (Ro.6:15;10:4;Gal.3:23-25).They were no longer to follow those who sit in Moses´seat.

However,when Paul came to Jerusalem,James said:

"And they are informed of thee,that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles TO FORSAKE MOSES,saying that they ought not to circumcise their children,neither to walk after the customs"(Acts21:21).

So James says that Paul will participate in the ordinances under the law to demonstrate that he was not teaching the Jews in his churches to "forsake Moses":

"Them take,and purify thyself with them,and pay their expenses,that they may shave their heads,and all may know that those things,of which they were informed concerning thee,are nothing,but that thou thyself also walketh orderly,AND KEEPEST THE LAW"(Acts21:24).

And Paul did take part in the law,even though he was teaching that "we are not under the law" and that "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believeth"(Ro.10:4).

Was not Paul himself,by taking part in the ordinances under the law,deceiving those in the church at Jerusalem?

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[bill betzler]

Was not Paul himself,by taking part in the ordinances under the law,deceiving those in the church at Jerusalem?

That would be one way of looking at it. But Jerry, also remember the Times they were in. This was a big transitional period for the believing Jews. The nuts and bolts changes in the Jews lives were great. To go from law to grace is quite a cultural shock.

I prefer to think of Paul's actions as those of a man with the knowledge of 'meat' helping those fledgling christians still on the 'new milk'. As we know, circumcision is neither here nor there for us today. So Paul did something that in his own mind had no significance one way or the other in that context. The real significance in that time period was that Jesus was understood to be Saviour.

 

[bill betzler]

I have just cut through the crap.

Dee Dee, thanks for getting the conversation back on track.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Bill.....LOLOLOLOLL.... and I did it in classic Dee Dee fashion did I not?? This is to dispel all rumors that becoming a mod has made me soft.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Bill,

I do not disagree with you that Paul´s intentions were honorable.

However,I raised this point in reference to the subject of this thread:

"Lying is never righteous."

It would appear that Paul did "lie" in a sense when he decieved the Jews at Jerusalem,so it would appear that in some circumstances it is a "righteous" thing to tell a lie.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

Plan on getting back to the debate then? you have said at least twice you would deal with my arguments in a substantive format, but I have yet to see the product of your labors.

I would appreciate it if you (not Knight, since he tends to blow off my questions with a sentence answer and assumes that deals with the issue) would deal with my argument from the character of God, namely Jesus as personification of truth. If you have already dealt with this argument and I missed it, please post it again for me to respond to.

Knight,

Working within your dispensational framework, wouldn't you need an NT example of lying to show it is backed within the current dispensation? I note that both of your examples are OT only.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Dee Dee,

Plan on getting back to the debate then? you have said at least twice you would deal with my arguments in a substantive format, but I have yet to see the product of your labors.

I would appreciate it if you (not Knight, since he tends to blow off my questions with a sentence answer and assumes that deals with the issue) would deal with my argument from the character of God, namely Jesus as personification of truth. If you have already dealt with this argument and I missed it, please post it again for me to respond to.

Knight,

Working within your dispensational framework, wouldn't you need an NT example of lying to show it is backed within the current dispensation? I note that both of your examples are OT only.

Good points Jaltus.

Working within your dispensational framework, wouldn't you need an NT example of lying to show it is backed within the current dispensation?

Well Knight?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jaltus, I believe I have responded to your points. I have not saved all of my responses to go and repost them, and do not have the time to go back and cull through the thread. In all honesty, the very fact that you legalistically (yes legalistically) can say with a straight face that deception is peachy as long as one uses a technically truthful statement to deceive has blown any credibility you have on this issue out of the water. You have yet to deal with that.... and that is core. It reminds me of how I heard some Israeli's are getting away with trying to obey the law to let the land rest in a sabbath year..... yes, technically they may be obeying (and I would argue that as well), but what is the spirit? Why is lying wrong?? Because it cheats and deceive people who have a right to know the unadulaterated facts. There is nothing inherently immoral in an untruthful statement. I have proven that over and over again.. with Gladys whom you have ignored.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am not dispensational, and I can tell that challenge is just plain dumb. Are you going to claim now that Knight should take a CoC position on musical instruments as well because there are no NT examples. You are grossly distorting the teachings of dispensationalism to make such a silly challenge.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Freak


Good points Jaltus.

Working within your dispensational framework, wouldn't you need an NT example of lying to show it is backed within the current dispensation?

Well Knight?

I tend to think the entire Bible is inspired by God both OT and NT.

Many things are cross dispensational, especially things that are not issues of salvation which is what dispensationalism is all about.

 

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

Show me biblically where we are told that one cannot use the truth to deceive.

After all, you tell me that we can flat out lie.

As for credibility, are you really serious? I have given numerous exegetical and theological proofs, and your position consists of one possible case of lying and Rahab, along with a bunch of made up circumstances that are totally unrealistic. You are trying to tell me that narrative texts are more important than didactic or doctrinal texts, which is a load of garbage. Your hermeneutic is really pathetic if that is what you hold to.

Again, the old "I am not going to post it again" is another way of saying you never posted it and are avoiding the issue. I generally go back and repost or at least pont to my old posts when asked, as I did for Knight earlier.

All I am learning from you, Dee Dee, is that you duck a solid debate when you get one if it is not on eschatology. You have to throw insults and derail the issue at hand as much as possible.

I have no idea who or what Gladys is (unless you mean sitting in your room and lying to your wall, which seems a bit strange).

Again, you avoid the issue of Christ. Is He or is He not the truth?

 

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

Actually, it was a question, not a challenge. Perhaps you think my question was stupid, but Knight hides behind dispyism whenever we deal with the consistency of his theological model, such as OV and OSAS. You speak out of your ignorance, Dee Dee.

Knight, I thought dispyism had a lot to do with the discontinuity between OT law and NT grace, or Israel and the church, as it were?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Dee Dee,

Show me biblically where we are told that one cannot use the truth to deceive.

After all, you tell me that we can flat out lie.

As for credibility, are you really serious? I have given numerous exegetical and theological proofs, and your position consists of one possible case of lying and Rahab, along with a bunch of made up circumstances that are totally unrealistic. You are trying to tell me that narrative texts are more important than didactic or doctrinal texts, which is a load of garbage. Your hermeneutic is really pathetic if that is what you hold to.

Again, the old "I am not going to post it again" is another way of saying you never posted it and are avoiding the issue. I generally go back and repost or at least pont to my old posts when asked, as I did for Knight earlier.

All I am learning from you, Dee Dee, is that you duck a solid debate when you get one if it is not on eschatology. You have to throw insults and derail the issue at hand as much as possible.

I have no idea who or what Gladys is (unless you mean sitting in your room and lying to your wall, which seems a bit strange).

Again, you avoid the issue of Christ. Is He or is He not the truth?

Jaltus, you said: DD.....are (you) trying to tell me that narrative texts are more important than didactic or doctrinal texts.

I get the same impression from DD.

 

[Freak]

Jaltus correctly points out:

All I am learning from you, Dee Dee, is that you duck a solid debate when you get one if it is not on eschatology. You have to throw insults and derail the issue at hand as much as possible.


She does the "duck" quite often.