Believing a Lie

Are you an atheist? Please answer: yes or no.

God deceives no one. To do so is outside of his perfect nature. Your argument is infantile. If I tell my daughter: Don't go outside today (it is too cold), or you will be grounded. If she disobeys me, and goes out, and I ground her, then have I deceived her? No, I have kept my promise. Yet you twist this type of scenario that God has with the Israelites and say that it is God's lies. That is blasphemy. Personally, by reading your posts I don't even think you belong on this board.
Your posts don't even seem to be from a Christian perspective but rather from an atheistic perspective. Where is your believe, or more importantly, who is the object of your faith?
Are you an Anglican or a Nazarene? Which one? Or maybe an atheist? Why not come out and be honest about yourself. We do have some Anglicans on this board. I will lead you to some of them, and I guarantee you that you do not have the same beliefs as they do. So what gives. We do require honesty when one registers here, and phonies can be spotted quite easily.

 

I agree. God deluded some of the wickid, but he did not deceive them. After reading DHK’s post, I looked up the word delusion. Deluding or deluded is the correct word, not deceive though that is a synonym. Assuming you agree with the facts (definitions) below, which are similar, I will continue with this post.

de·ceive-
1archaic : ensnare
2 aobsolete : to be false to barchaic : to fail to fulfill
3obsolete : cheat
4: to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid
5archaic : to while away intransitive verb

de·lu·sion
an act or instance of deluding. the state of being deluded.

Deluded
de·lud·ed, de·lud·ing, de·ludes
1. To deceive the mind or judgment of: See Synonyms at deceive.
2. Obsolete To elude or evade.
3. Obsolete To frustrate the hopes or plans of.

Continuing on, we know the Lord is sinless perfection. These powerful delusions thrown by God to delude(d) the wicked are for the greater good. Even if it isn’t revealed to us, we must trust him.

Agreed

Alright, here is more scripture.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Romans 3:4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."

"I have not written unto you because you know not the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth." (1 John 2:21).


"I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the father except thru me"

No problem. Thanks for clarifying
This is what I surmise of your post. Correct me if I am wrong. Your saying if God approves or authorizes a plan which involves a violation of his law, (Lying for example) then God is implicated in the violation of the law?

The problem with that is God is only bound to his own law when he chooses to be, which is revealed in his word. So regarding this topic of lying, God not only forbids us not to lie, but he has willed himself incapable of lying. He has been incapable of lying before he created earth. He deems lying as sin thus he cannot lie. He is sinless

And what is wrong/sin for us isn’t necessarily wrong or sinful for God.

Comparing Gods laws to our secular legal system only goes so far in holding water.

Agreed

 

I Tim. 6:3 "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth"

Paul wrote these words to Timothy who was a servant of the body of Christ, the church. I am guessing all of us would claim to be the same. Some have even admitted going to seminary, I would assume for the purpose of ministering to the saints or preaching the gospel.

He then continues later in verse 11: "But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness."

And finishes his letter with: 20 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

I think these are good words for all of us to have in mind regarding this thread. We are told to do everything unto edification. I am failing to see the edification in this thread so far. I read it from the beginning and did not see Christ being glorified. Thought I would express my thoughts on the matter.

 

I have been straightforward, honest, and accurate in responding to every question here, provided it is not one asking for personal information. I have an ironclad rule for myself and my family regarding the internet: We don't give personal information to strangers or make it available on the internet.

This is PRECISELY the policy which is advised by EVERY police force and law enforcement agency in North America.


No. I am not an atheist. That is preposterous.
The straightforward, honest and accurate answer to your question is NO.

And on the positive side, in light of your absurd insinuations, I respond with this:

The 'Object' of my faith, meaning my trust and loyalty, is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of Kings, the Living Word of God, the Onlybegotten Son of God.

But I 'object' to calling my King and Lord an 'object'. Your language disturbs me, as well as your inability to perceive or properly discern the people under your nose.

I have a question for you:

How did you ever qualify to be a moderator?

Again, your implication is judgemental, arrogant, and plain wrong.


I have been completely honest about my faith, public history, personal beliefs, in spite of your innuendos.

Your question is also based entirely on ignorance, and a probable misreading of my posts. Why don't you go back and read them again.

I never said I was a "Nazarene", which I presume you think refers to a 'denomination'. Probably in your gated white community, the only thing you've ever seen with a word like 'Nazarite' on it is a sign on some pentecostal church saying "Church of the Nazarene" or some such drivel.

GO BACK and READ my POSTS AGAIN.

I am a Nazarite, which as I explained IN THE POST WHERE I SAID THAT, means I took the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6. It has nothing to do with any denomination.

The Nazarite Vow is the only VOLUNTARY law in the entire Old Testament.

Why don't you do a bible study and get back to me when you've done your homework. Then you won't humiliate and embarrass yourself.

What a surprise.

There are about 300 Anglicans in my church, and no two of them agree on much. We all accept the ancient creeds, and after that lipservice, it is quite difficult to say "what Anglicans believe".

The fact of the matter (as you should well know) is that the Anglican church is in the midst of a WAR over doctrine, including the ordination of women and gays, and the 'blessing' of homosexual relationships...

Nor need I remind anyone of the Anglican church's involvement in pedophile rings and racist culture destruction perpetrated on the Native peoples here in Canada.

Our church is in the middle of setting up huge (million dollar) funds and services to help compensate for the violent treatement that Natives received over the last 100 years here.

Your point is a worthless point, because it offers no guidance whatsoever on who is a "true Anglican" or what a "true Anglican" should believe or do.

No. You won't be leading me anywhere, until you can demonstrate that you aren't a blind man.

But not apparently by you, who seem unable to distinguish "phonies" from ordinary Christians.

Now you are accusing me of blasphemy.

Well, Jesus warned Christians that whatever they did to Him, they would do to His followers.

I am not above my master. Thank you for confirming who is the Pharisee, and who is the disciple.

Peace,
Nazaroo

 

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment and dismay here.

Although I joined this thread late, I will take my share of the responsibility for the unedifying results of this thread. I had thought to abandon it, but I felt that the Lord would not have wished that either as any form of 'solution'.

We can begin again by indeed edifying Christ the King, acknowledging Him as Lord and King, and especially Teacher.

I am trusting that Jesus Himself through the Holy Spirit will restore the hearts and minds of those here to carry on and raise up this conversation out of the childishness, hysteria, accusations, and emotional baggage that have dragged it down.

I would ask all Christians, both posters and readers to pray here, and allow important light and truth to indeed overcome any darkness and set us free from prejudice, preconceptions, vanity, self-righteousness, or any other form of illegitimate pride that hinders us from sharing and understanding God's wisdom here today.

Peace.
If there be any man of peace here,
Let the peace of the Lord Jesus rest upon him,
and let him teach wisdom.

Nazaroo

 

Dear Joe:

I am responding to you last, because you appear to have the most patience.

I trust you perceive that others here have not understood nor really followed our discussion, but have turned it into an excuse to argue.


Thank you for your careful and considerate response to my last post to you.

Let me begin in agreement with you that God is indeed SINLESS PERFECTION.

I have no problem at all with that doctrine.

This I am sure we agree upon, and is not a real point of debate between us.


I was concerned that some of our discussion would get bogged down in semantics, but I sensed that you also did not wish that to occur.

I appreciate your posting of definitions; for completeness we could have a few examples of definitions for 'lying'.

But I think this won't be necessary, if we can agree in this:

My use of the word 'lie' or 'lying' appears provocative, and has caused some confusion among various people here. I suggest we follow your lead, and avoid that word entirely in this discussion, and perhaps even the word 'deceive', and in the main just accept the word 'delusion'.

This will not automatically resolve any truth issues, but it will prevent further distractions over semantics.

The question isn't really one of 'words', but a question of ethical and moral standards, both those that God would hold us to, and those that God Himself holds up as an example for us.

So it is important to clarify those standards, not the wording, but real intent and meaning of them.

This won't be a full response, but just an initial observation here.

In the language here as it has been traditionally translated, it does indeed seem to set also a standard of acceptable language in regard to God, for the purpose of not misleading ourselves or others about God's nature.

Obviously Jesus was the ultimate example given to us of God as Father.

And simultaneously Jesus is held up in the gospels as the paradigm of Truth.

It is a foregone conclusion that God the Father is essentially Truthful in His nature.

So we start there.

Yet you yourself have admitted to me that God indeed "deludes" men, and that this is also a very REAL TRUTH about God.

So it is up to us to find the correct way to reconcile these TWO TRUTHS, to divide the word of God accurately to result in the COMPLETE TRUTH, as painted by the Holy Scriptures.

Hmm. Now if I understand you correctly, the example might be this.

God forbids murder. But God's law requires executions in the process of meting out justice. It is a logical fallacy to say that God condones 'murder' or is hypocritical here, because murder and killing are not synonyms.

One can obviously accidentally kill someone (accidental death) or even via neglegence or incompetance, (manslaughter), or even malice aforethought WITHOUT intent to murder (i.e., homicide during the commission of another crime).

So we don't find a real difficulty with God allowing killing in some circumstances, such as extreme violations of the Moral Law (e.g. Ten Commandments).

A second argument could be brought forward in any case, that God is different in NATURE and KIND than man, and obviously has DIFFERENT authority. This could mean that God is NOT under the same laws as man, although He would remain ultimately pure and without sin (that is not under debate), and He would remain righteous and honest (which is the claim under review).

So just as we have different laws for men and women and animals, we might expect different laws for mankind and God. There is no necessity or need to admit there is any hypocrisy in this.

The question is not,

"Are the laws for God and Man identical?"


But rather,

"Are the laws for God and Man just and fair?"

I think some of your sentiments and arguments here are also fleshed out in my discussion above.

One thought I have on your last statements here is that if we DEFINE lying as a sin, and we DEFINE God as sinless, then we have 'proven' God does not 'lie' through a tautology, or by mere semantics.

We may not have solved any real ethical issues at all, but have merely defined 'lying' as necessarily involving 'sin'.

The argument then would be: "Does God lie?"

"No. In our dictionary 'lying' is said also to be a sin. God is sinless. Therefore God could not have lied, even if He appears to have technically gone through the same motions, and physically done the exact same thing as the 'liar' has."

To me this kind of argument is not satisfactory for I think obvious reasons.

Peace,
Nazaroo

 

You're welcome. I am not being patient, just trying to understand.

I understand the goal, this makes sense, but can't see how we can avoid the word lying if this is what we are debating.

Agreed

Yes, absolutely.

The examples, your comparisions to our secular criminal law system in helping us understand are compelling. This is helpful, except we need solid scriptural support to believe God lies. This is where our opinions differ. I don't see it.

Good examples

Imo, this is truth.

It can certainly be easily viewed as hypocrisy, but we know differently.

We can't debate his will, only try to better understand it. Even if we view it as unfair at times, it makes no difference. Getting into the word helps us understand his reasons. Even so, not are things are revealed to us at this time.

That sounds like reasonable thinking, but I am not sure we can apply our secular reasonable thinking to determine God doesn't lie without scriptural support. We need proof. Do you have any scriptural examples of God lying to someone in the bible?

There are instances, imo, and again, this is imo but... where the Lord approves of humans lying when it is fulfilling his will or in line with his will. Such as Abraham lying about his sister being his wife to protect himself. He is a righteous man, and remained a righteous man during this time. God didn't punish him or even object to that lie.

Another example:If a woman asks me if I like her new dress, I don’t reply “no” even if it is so. I may say something like “It has pretty colors” or something which detracts from the question, misleading her to believe I like it. I deluded her because she was already so willing to believe her dress was pretty.

Yes, I agree. The Lord often appears to conflict himself, one motivation for getting in the word to understand the truth.
To play devils advocate, let’s say the Lord does lie. To prove it, there would need to be scriptural support and I don’t see any so far. I see resembelences of liars to deluders. Sometimes we use the term “She was living a lie” –another definition of lying. Maybe in this instance it is reduced to being a “technical” lie (one of your examples). This may not hold up in secular criminal court, but it certainly could be the Lord’s definition of lying. I know I am really stretching it to box him in, this is more of a food for thought than anything.
Imo, deluding someone, depending upon the situation, may be within Gods will.

 

There are certainly cases where the LORD has engaged in deception, and had it recorded in the Holy Scriptures, in both Old and New Testaments.

For instance, in the O.T., we have one prophet 'deluding' the whole Syrian army, confusing them and leading them into captivity.

Then the 'illusion' is lifted and they find themselves prisoners of the Israelites.

Tactically it is a brilliant battle strategy. Ethically it raises serious issues.

Ultimately, although the Israelites were inclined to kill them all, the prophet immediately ordered that these prisoners be fed and released, to return home, an astounding act of mercy and compassion for these footsoldiers in a foreign army.

From the subsequent events, it is clear that the LORD did not deceive them in order to destroy them in this case. Rather, it is obvious that no evil intent was involved, but actually a great mercy. No men, Israelite or Syrian had to die. They only had to separate in peace, in order to escape horrific consequences.

A second example is in the case where a prophet sends a message to the king that he will live, while in fact the prophet knows and says to the messenger that the king will actually die.

In both these cases, there is no provable ill-will or bad intent on the part of the prophet or the LORD. It seems that both were means or excuses for acts of compassion or mercy. In the second case, it may simply have been better for the dying patient not to give him ill news which would only make his dying more stressful and unpleasant. Doctors make decisions like this every day.

Do these cases correspond to what people today refer to as "white lies"? Lies that have a 'noble' purpose, or in which the end and purpose justifies the action?

We may not be allowed to call them 'lies'. We may not want to call them 'deceptions'. We may have to settle for a label like 'illusion' or 'delusion'.

But it is hard to deny that events like this are found in both the Old and New Testaments.

The issues that these incidents raise are not simple or easy to understand. We don't as Christians generally believe that "the end justifies the means". And we DON'T generally believe that lying is an acceptable practice for ordinary Christians.

Yet there are cases where both God, and our own Christian leaders and apostles have engaged in 'delusion'.

For example, Paul and his friends 'tricked' the Jews who were plotting to kill him, by having Paul lowered in a basket by a rope out a window and so he escaped them. These things may have appeared necessary and even justified at the time. (and similar circumstances in war occur daily). But later the LORD showed that indeed angels could simply be sent at any time to free Apostles like Peter and John from prison if the LORD so willed.

What are we to make of these events, both ordinary, and miraculous? What moral and ethical lessons are we to draw from them?

The answers are not so easy.


Peace,
Nazaroo

 

There are ascetics today, and dervishes, and even sufis. But this one thing I know. There are no Nazarites. In spite of whatever vows you take you are not a Nazarite. Nazarites ceased to exist in the time of the Apostles. They were confined to the Israelites, not to the Gentiles. There are no Nazarites today. In fact Jesus himself warned against the practice of taking vows.

 

This kind of argument is akin to the one whereby certain Nazis and racist groups argue that "there was no Holocaust", and "the Jews are not descended from the Israelites".

You know what you know so well, that there may be a danger you "know nothing as you ought to know it."

If for instance, a man says he is a Jew, and follows Jewish religion, custom and practice, he is for all practical purposes a Jew.

Even if he was biologically descended from Adolph Hitler himself. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, its a duck.

And if a man is willing even to be hauled off to a concentration camp and be gassed for being a Jew, you might as well allow him the dignity of calling himself a Jew, even if every other Jew, orthodox or unorthodox, atheist or devout, conservative or liberal, denies his right to be a Jew.

There is a law of diminishing returns in attempting to refute a person regarding their own self-identity. You are wasting your time.

Even if Stevie Wonder or Ray Charlies or any man born blind got up and said "I am an Anglo-Saxon, descendant of the Vikings", it would be futile for you to point to his skin color, even before the whole world and try to argue with him.

The point is, it is a childish argument. I took Nazarite vows, and I have renewed Nazarite vows. Thats what Nazarites of old did, and if I do that today, I am entitled to call myself a Nazarite, meaning no more or less than what I just said.

Scripture reference please.

If you are going to invent history, then you will be engaging in fantasy. Today there are thousands of Nazarite communities all over the world, and even on the Internet.

http://www.nazarite.com/
http://www.sabbatarian.com/Content/Nazarite.html

http://directory.ic.org/records/?action=view&record_id=20543
http://technorati.com/tag/Nazarite
http://osdir.com/ml/culture.templar.rosemont/2002-09/msg00007.html
http://www.experiencefestival.com/nazarite

http://www.nazarite.net/
http://razorskiss.net/wp/index.php?p=13
http://nazarite.stumbleupon.com/
http://www.biblecentre.org/topics/chm_nazarite.htm
http://www.rastafari-nazarite-library.com/index.html
http://rinahshal.tripod.com/id165.html
http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/nazarite-childrens-missions.html
http://www.puritanboard.com/f40/samson-exception-standard-nazarite-rules-21023/
http://home.earthlink.net/~mpeever/cac/Established/node7.html

This is just a quick sample of literally hundreds of thousands of active links, communities and articles on MODERN DAY Nazarites.

Interest and practice of Nazarite Vows are a widespread practise, both among Jews and non-Jews today.

And you pretending that they don't exist is just irrational.

Again, this is not Christian truth, but nonsense.

Jesus indeed warned against taking frivolous vows, or insincere or hypocritical vows. He especially warned about swearing needless oaths, and attempting to avoid personal responsibility through 'legal loopholes', as some in His day did.

But Jesus Himself took a Nazarite vow of the strongest wording at the Last Supper, as recorded in Luke 22:18.


AND WHY ARE YOU, A MODERATOR, POSTING OFF TOPIC REPEATEDLY IN EVERY THREAD OF MINE?

WHY DO YOU WANT TO DERAIL ALL THESE THREADS?

WHO ARE YOU, AND WHAT DO YOU REALLY WANT?


Peace,
Nazaroo

 

HP: I have a question for anyone claiming to be a Nazarite. How could anyone today fulfill the requirements of such a vow when the whole sacrificial system has been done away with?

 

Who will be the liar inspector???? :applause:

 

The answer is surprisingly easy for any Christian, who knows already that the LETTER of the Law kills, but Spirit of the Law gives life.


The LORD God is not unreasonable, or some kind of monster, that He would demand from any man something impossible for that man to fulfill.

We handle the Nazarite Law the same way that we handle the rest of the Old Testament Law.

We recognise that the parts of the Law involving ordinances and regulations regarding the TEMPLE, which NO LONGER EXISTS are done away with. Men are excused from those obligations.

On the other hand, just as Paul (and Jesus) expects Christians to continue avoiding LAWLESSNESS, by persevering in the the Moral Law, such as abstaining from Murder, Robbery, Fornication, Adultery, Idolatry, Witchcraft, Drug Dealing, etc., which we have been warned, that no person pursuing those things can inherit the Kingdom of God...

We also may with the Nazarite Vow and many other Old Testament guidelines and laws, continue to keep those parts of the Law which have moral and ethical force, and which have practical benefits for the individual and the community.

For the Nazarite Vow, which is a Vow of Holiness, one does what every Christian is repeatedly asked to do, namely, avoid drunkenness, and BE SOBER.

Nazarite Vow is deliberately worded in extreme terms, to underline the seriousness of HOLINESS, which ALL Christians are continually urged to remain IN.

You may think the Nazarite Vow is trivial, or obselete, or impossible to fulfill in every aspect today literally, but its SPIRIT is very much alive, for it is the Spirit of Holiness.

For the Old Testament, for ALL of Jesus' Jewish hearers, for Paul at the Temple, and even for us today, the Nazarite Vow was the VERY definition of Holiness, and provided a way for the ordinary Israelite to VOLUNTEER to maintain his own holiness, and achieve the same holiness as a priest, who also was required to follow the same strict practical rules for holiness.

The Nazarite Vow continues to define the terms of holiness for Jews and others in the Middle East, for all who would follow in the steps of devotion to the LORD, forsaking all worldly pursuits.

So yes. Many people take and keep Nazarite vows today, with the same success (and failures) that early Israelites did. The sacrifice of pigeons (for poor men) in order to provide sustinence for the priests is no longer possible or needed, however these aspects of the vow are NOT essential or integral to the vow itself, which is a simple vow of holiness to the LORD.

To be RECOGNISED and documented, Israelites had to report to (and support) the priesthood. With the New Covenant of the Messiah Jesus the Christ, this is not required.

As HEBREWS states, we (Christians, Jewish or otherwise) are a NATION of PRIESTS, and have no need of an external priesthood. We have one High Priest, Jesus the Christ, who has handled all sacrificial aspects of the Law INCLUDING the Nazarite Law for us, once, for all.

So one can be (and must be) both a Christian and a Nazarite today.

Jewish Nazarites have the same problems as Christian Nazarites in regards to sacrificial rites. These are no longer possible to fulfill as prescribed in the Temple Cultus.

But some Jews perform local sacrifices through local Cohens (priests), while others accept that the Temple Period is over, at least for now.

Peace,
Nazaroo

 

Jesus did not take a Nazarite vow, Nazaroo. You need to stretch your brain some.

Jesus only said He would no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until He drank in new with the Disciples.

That is a far cry from a Nazarite vow. I cannot see any statement by Jesus saying He would not cut His hair, which was part of the Nazarite vow.

 

It would seem to me that if it doesn’t quack like a duck and doesn’t walk like a duck, is most likely is not a duck……….or in this case a Nazarite.

Nazaroo speaks of non-Jewish Nazarites as I recall. Pray tell me how a Gentile could fulfill the vows of a Nazarite? Would not he have been killed for profaning the temple before he even got near the priest with his hair in his hand? Would not have his hair been severed right about his neck line, head and hair intact? I do not proclaim to know, just asking.

 

Oh really? Do you have a battlement on your roof? (a wall with holes for weapons to be shot through?

Do you wear garments of only one kind of cloth?

Can you provide pictures of you in such and of your roof?

What is your occupation? What kind of work do you do?

 

Hi HP :wavey: Haven't talked to you in awhile.
I don't think this duck quacks either.
I got tickled reading your description of the hair being severed at the neck.

 

Wasn't the Nazarite vow for Jews only?

 

I guarantee you do not follow the OT laws, as Peter said in Acts that it was impossible for the Jewish Council or their father's to obey.

So, if you handle the Nazarite vow in the same manner you hand the OT Law, one can only come to the conclusion that you cannot obey the Nazarite law. Ergo... you are not a Nazarite.

 

Way of Life Encyclopedia
NAZARITE, NAZIRITE

(separated). One who made a special vow of dedication to God (Numbers 6:2-21; Judges 13:5,7; Judges 16:17; Luke 1:15). The characteristics of the Nazarite vow:

(1) It was voluntary.
(2) Any true Israelite could make the vow (Numbers 6:2).
(3) It was a vow both men and women could make (Numbers 6:2).
(4) It was a vow of total consecration and separation (Numbers 6:2,5-8).
(5) It was a vow of reproach. This is symbolized by the fact that the man was not to cut his hair (compare Numbers 6:5; 1 Corinthians 11:14).
(6) It involved extreme caution (Numbers 6:9).
(7) God was to be above all other relationships (Numbers 6:7). Though the Nazarite was ordinarily a vow voluntarily taken, there were examples of men ordained of God to be Nazarites (Amos 2:11): Samson (Judges 13:5); Samuel (1 Samuel 1:11); John the Baptist (Luke 1:15).

Nazaroo, do you qualify according to these characteristics of the Nazarite vow? Are you a true Israelite? Do you cut your hair? Since there is no temple, where do you consecrate yourself?

It appears that John the Baptist was the last Nazarite mentioned in the Bible.