Dee Dee,
Onto your second post (smart of you to split it up, not so smart to try to take me on).
Honestly, do you have a hermeneutic at all? Don't you see how absurd this makes your belief structure have to be in order to remain consistent?
Onto your second post (smart of you to split it up, not so smart to try to take me on).
That is in fact false. God's character is not more love than truth. Jesus (and hence God) IS truth, just as God IS love. He is not one more than the other. You are promoting a nonbiblical view of God.Actually both Knight and I have. God own character is based upon justice and mercy and love. God own character would not have you tell the Nazis about the Jews in your basement.
Well, if you are going to make stupid scenarios, expect stupid answers. I can only rise so far above the morass you try to put me in. (I thought you would get a kick out of that little speel there). Seriously, if you do not want an answer like that, stick to the issue at hand instead of making up hypothetical situations. I would not go into business in the first place, I am an academician. Your response is also less than helpful.That has to be the most nonsensical thing you have recently said in this talk Jaltus. Are you then saying that my scenario would be peachily moral between two nonbelievers or a believer who decided, for whatever reason, to go into business with a nonbeliever. You have grabbed Plantiga’s tar baby.
The II Thess passage is irrelevent. In fact, the entire above paragraph is irrelevent. You still did not deal with what the Greek word means, and it is very important for my theological argument from God's character hinges on it. The word for lying in Greek means SAYING SOMETHING FALSE. It does not mean or imply or include truth for deceptive reasons.I brought it up to show that deceit was an implicit concept in lying, whether truth was used to deceive or a falsehood was used to deceive. Additionally since our main texts are in the OT, it was a side point, and the NT certainly is not going to outright contradict the OT on this issue. Additionally within the meaning of that Greek word, just like the English word is “in a broad sense, whatever is not what it seems to be.” Additionally, in your eschatological paradigm your take on 2 Thess 2:9 would defeat your argument as well as the “man of sin” allegedly will perform “real” signs and wonders, but they are false in validating
him.. they will deceive the people.
Taken by itself it would, taken canonically it cannot.Since this text also says “to one another,” it is okay to lie to unbelievers?
Of course He praises them for their FAITH, not their (alleged) lies, which invalidates your position.Oh, wow. I am sure glad you said that. Read the Bible. Hmm. Like where He rewards the midwives and praises Rahab. Thanks…. That clears things up a lot, unfortunately for your position.
One can have faith and still sin. She was commended for her faith, not for her sin. She was commended for fearing God, not for lying. Your case is that she was commended for lying, but that is in fact an argument from silence since her lying IS NEVER COMMENTED UPON, either good or bad. Using your insane way of reading the Bible I guess it is okay to be a prostitute since she is not condemned for that either.Sorry, but I am on a low-straw diet. No one said any of her works saved her so of course her faith saved her, and she is specifically mentioned as being faithful in her actions with the spies which absolutely includes her lie. It is highly problematic for your that her lie is never condemned. Would you, in dealing with your children for an act that they did that contained a lot of good, but in the midst of which they immorally lied which was pivotal to achieving their goals, praise them in front of your other children without rebuking the immorality to give a balance??
Honestly, do you have a hermeneutic at all? Don't you see how absurd this makes your belief structure have to be in order to remain consistent?
Yup, and being a harlot is a good thing. Her faith was in saving them, notice the lying is not mentioned by her harlotry is. Must be a good thing to be a harlot then since it is not explicitly condemned and is in fact mentioned where she is praised.James 2:25- Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
And how did she send them out another way??? By lying to save their hides.
Really? If it is so central, why is it only mentioned in the narrative AND NOT ANY OTHER TIME SHE IS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE? Looks like it is only central to you. Again, her being a harlot was not condemned either, but I do not see you looking at that as an exciting new profession not explicitly condemned by the Bible in one passage.Wow, then why wasn’t Rahab’s lack of faith in lying WHICH IS CENTRAL TO HER ROLE WITH THE SPIES, ever condemned. Instead she is mentioned in the proverbial “Hall of Faith.”