Is it a lie?

In my opinion, that would be no more of a lie than if YOU got sick and couldn't go.

OTOH, if little Johnny has a cold, I don't think the whole family needs to stay home and wipe his nose...

God first, families second, and church third.

 

Did you get that idea from a song?

 

Yep! Sure did!

 

Uhh, no. A statement of likely intent isn't in any way a committal. Even if it were committal, it would be, at best, breaking a promise, which is a completely separate issue from lying.

 

Yes, I assume it but that doesn't mean she has implied it.

The conclusions of other people are not my concern if I am making no attempt to communicate anything to them. If my house burns down and I assume that it is a punishment from God when in fact it isn't, does that mean that God has lied to me?

Again, observers' erroneous assumptions are not the responsibility of the principle characters.

Again, God did not IMPLY that this was a regular birth. He stated implicitly that it was a virgin birth. The fact that others (not privy to this information) inferred (no matter how reasonable) a non virgin birth does not change God's intentions.

Admittedly faceious but when a person infers something without sufficient knowledge it is automatically their fault.

That's worse than my example. This lady would not be trying to give your a FALSE impression, she would be trying her dead level best to give you no impression whatsoever. No implication equals no communication equals no lie.

 

That's preposterous. The woman in question (though I don't like repeated reference to this) is without question implying something which is not true. If she were giving "no impression at all" she would NOT be wearing something fake. Evidently you think a man (or woman) who is bald and wears a wig is not implying something which is not true.

Evidently that is your problem with this, in that it is not at all what the poll was asking or is about.

And God's intentions are not what the poll was asking either. Yet He could have appeared in that pillar of fire and told everyone who saw Mary and Jesus that is was a virgin birth. Instead He let them believe what was an inevitable conclusion. There is no avoiding that He implied what was not true.

 

OK, we'll leave that poor woman alone and use the bald headed guy as our point of discussion. Apparently, you have a problem with the word "imply". It means to involve as a necessary circumstance. It is something that the principle character does intentionally, and with purpose of forethopught. It is a subtle difference having to do with the persons intentions and not with the observers assumptions. According to your way of looking at it, any erroneous reasonable assumption on my part results in a lie on the principle's part. The wig wearer may, indeed, be trying to make people think that this is actually his naturally growth hair. or he may be just trying to not draw attention to his misshapened chrome dome. It has everything to do with his intentions and nothing whatsoever to do with your or my conclusions.

Not only is there a way of avoiding it, I maintain that there is no way of asserting it. Asserting something that is technically true but has the express purpose of communicating something false is a lie (think Bill Clinton). How can you say that God, in any manner, had as His purpose the intention of trying to convince people that Mary was a non virgin when she gave birth. It is not the responsibility of the speaker to make sure that there is no possiblity that anyone CAN draw a false conclusion but only that he (the speaker) is not TRYING to communicate that falsehood.

 

No, it means to indicate by inference or direct association, rather than by a denotative statement.

Nonsense. Where you are mistaken here is that I do not hold, and did not answer in the poll, that any erroneous, but reasonaable, assumption on the part of the observer constitutes a lie on the part of the observee. Besides, that would not "result in a lie;" it would be a lie before, or in the absence of any, result.

No real difference. He is implying that which is not true, but it would only be a lie if he said he is not bald or that is his 'natural' hair.

Do you really think you are quoting me on that?

Unfortunately there is a lot of dealing with that on many levels; politics, sales, law, ministry.... "Alright, let me clarify that..." If someone gets the 'wrong' message, there seems to always be a way to say it was "misunderstood," while someone who got the right drift hardly ever challenges the 'clarification' that would cast doubt on it.

In the meantime, you got the idea that I said God was lying by the implication that the birth of Jesus was of natural consequence... or that my implying I thought that made me (in this case) or God (in any case) a liar. By your own words, "It is not the responsibility of the speaker to make sure that there is no possiblity that anyone CAN draw a false conclusion but only that he (the speaker) is not TRYING to communicate that falsehood."

 

No, it means to indicate by inference or direct association, rather than by a denotative statement.</font>[/QUOTE]The American College Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary both gave the definition I used and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives the following:

to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement

They all agree that what is implied is part of the message that the speaker is trying to convey. It is not an acident and you cannot say that the speaker implied something that is untrue and still have the speaker speak the truth.

Nonsense. Where you are mistaken here is that I do not hold, and did not answer in the poll, that any erroneous, but reasonaable, assumption on the part of the observer constitutes a lie on the part of the observee. Besides, that would not "result in a lie;" it would be a lie before, or in the absence of any, result.</font>[/QUOTE]Oops, OK, "results" was a poor choice of words on my part. I only meant that anytime you have that "erroneous, but reasonaable, assumption" it would indicate that the original statement was a lie (according to what it seemed to me you were saying). I, also, may be missunderstanding your position. The poll posited that implying something that was untrue made it a lie and I agreed. You then began discussing this with me and I got the idea that you did not consider this to be a lie

Do you really think you are quoting me on that?</font>[/QUOTE]No, I was rewording to suit my own purpose, isn't that what we do on the board? Here is a quote of yours that I was responding to.

I realize that neither you nor I are saying that God lied. I was saying that God did not "imply" this untruth and thereofre did not lie. You are saying (it seems to me) that God did imply this untruth but that implying an untruth is not a lie. I was defending my position and not God, as you were not disagreeing with God, just with me.

Example:1 The phone rings and it is someone I do not wish to talk to right now. I walk into the bathroom and step into the bathtub and my wife tells the caller that I am in the bathtub. That is technically true but she and I are definitely implying that I am taking a bath and therefore cannot come to the phone. That is a lie because I purposely led someone to a false conclusion while actually making a true statement.

Example 2: I can make an untrue statement and it NOT be a lie. "I am Artimaeus" is not a lie, yet we all know that that is not my real name, it is a cybername. I did not fool, trick, deceive, or in any manner imply that that is my real name.

My point is that to imply an untruth is to lie. To infer an untruth does not make a lie.

 

While I don't know the exact explanation for this dilemma, a few facts are clear: (1)Since Mary conceived as a virgin [as Bible believers must accept] it was completely unnecessary for Joseph to be involved in such a way as to imply that he was the father; the premature father to those who knew the couple. (2)If #1 was done for Mary's protection, God could have easily seen to it that nothing happened to threaten her life or the baby's life without involving any man. (3)Unquestionably God knew the way this was set up would lead people to believe Joseph was the father, independent of whether it was any observer's 'business' or not. Applying this to a later NT verse of scripture which is often quoted on this board in regard to alcohol consumption, "Avoid the appearance of evil..." I choose to just leave this at the fact that God is not Richard Nixon, and that when He does it, it's not "illegal," since He is not only "chief executive," but also the legislator and interpreter of all His laws. But no, I don't think it's lying for a bald man or woman to wear a wig, for a person who has been amputated to wear a prosthesis of some type, or for God to set things up as He did regarding the birth of his son. And, just one more time, I was one of the few who did not say in the poll that to imply something which is not true is a lie.

Well, I'm such a 'weasel' that it's not often people get away with such things with me (I think; I suppose I can't always know if they are
). But I would detect in a minute, especially if there had been the slightest hesitation, that this was a ploy, and I would ask, "Is there any water in the bathtub?" My favorite story like that, though, is of the guy who didn't want to go to work one day, so while he was still in bed he told his wife to bring him a frozen dinner, and then he threw it up in the air and caught it, then told her to call his work and tell them he is not coming in and he is 'flat on his back and just threw up his dinner.' If I were his boss, I would ask why the words "sick" or "ill" were not used, besides asking to talk to him, not his wife (or vice versa, if that were the case).

I actually thought it might be your name, though my only concern was what you say, your 'cybername.' But I agree that sometimes there is a "frame of reference" or a special situation that can change normal rules. Was Tom Landry a liar, for example? He was the NFL coach who began making deceptive shifts and motion [a back implying he is going one way when he is not] a significant part of his offense. And any quarterback, any 3rd base coach, are going to shout or gesture 'signals,' a large portion of which are false in order to keep the opposing team from being able to 'steal' them. There has been discussion before on BB about whether it could possibly be not sinful to deliberately commit a rules violation in sports [e.g., a deliberate foul in basketball to force a free throw in order to get the ball back without time running out] to have a chance to win. This might be leading to a new poll, "Exceptions to the rules."

 

The way God set it up does lead to a reasonable inference on the part of the observers but that is not the same thing as God "implying" that Joseph was the biological father. There is no hint anywhere is scripture that that was God's intent, purpose, reason, or goal and that is the whole point of whether or not it was implied. Did God do this on purpose and as a goal. If not, then it was not an implication on God's part. The very fact that it is a reasonable inferrance on our part does not make the inference an intentional purpose.

It is my understanding that Mary, being the biological mother of Jesus, provided a direct line for Jesus to be King and that Joseph, being His lawful father, provided the proper legality for Jesus to be King.

Actually, it is Joe

All right, now you have gone too far. I am irked, my ire is fueled. If you make me doubt my University of Kentucky basketball team I will come through that screen and throtle you (that's the least threatening threatening word I know)

Seriously, I think this is the key. When we make rules we end the Spirit being the influence. this is the heart of the problem with legalism. It isn't the effort of the legalist to live a Godly life it is the restrainiong of the Holy Spirit by dictating what is and what isn't God's will.

 

And that furthers the implication that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Or was Joseph chosen just entirely at random?

 

No, it furthers the inference on our part, not the implication on God's part. We cannot know what someone implies unless we know the whole story, all we can do is make inferences about what they said about they may have implied.

Person #1 implies and Person #2 infers.

 

Imply.... Infer... regardless, Christ was born in the flesh after the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary.

Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. Mary knew no man sexually before Christ was born. Joseph thought to put her away privately because of the pregnancy, but the angel of the Lord told Joseph the child which she would bear was not of the seed of man, but of the Holy Ghost.

 

Interesting responses.