Do you make the sabbath day holy? Would you expect a doctor who may be called to an emergency because someone is dying to stay in church and not care for the person he was called to treat. I see what God calls us to is not legalism but the highest calling and priority. Do pastors not work on Sunday? So if a pastor works in any way would he not be keeping the sabbath day holy?
Look at all that surrounds that statement.
Ethics Question
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by 12strings, Apr 15, 2012.
Page 3 of 8
-
This thread is an ethics question on lying.
So my question still stands: Does the 10 commandments further explain "thou shalt not lie"?
I was given one verse that states God hates a lying tounge. that's great. I think we all knew that, and I appreciate the verse.
But do we have a verse that God says he doesn't hate the lying gesture? Or the lying misdirection? -
-
It doesn't change what I've said above. It doesn't mean that the only lies one can do are by the tounge.
I'm not arguing right or wrong, or when it's right or wrong. My beef is with the ideal of what is a lie. Misdirection? Deceit? Etc. Not just words of the mouth. -
Suppose we misdirected a robber and the person becomes a believer of does not become a believer have we not saved them from something worse later such as a jail time or suffering because of what they did to someone. I cannot imagine a person purposely killing someone or even robbing someone and then becoming a believer later and the pain the person would go through the rest of their life. In misdirecting we may save two people. The robber and the person he wanted to rob. Is that not the higher goal than just the immediate. Let's add a little to that. Suppose you had a friend and someone wanted to rob you and the robber asked where you were and your friend told him what would that do to the robber, your friend, and you. Would his refusal to misdirect someone serve any purpose that would glorify God? -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
My bad here, as I should've been more clear.
Are there times it is justifiable? Well, I think that Samuel verse points that way. Rahab did it.
Will I ever lie again? Sure. Will I feel bad about it? Depends on the lie I suppose. I'm saved by the grace of God though, and I do my best to be truthful.
But if someone pointed a gun at my wife's head and the only way I thought she could be spared would be to lie, I'd lie in a heartbeat. If I had been one of those kids at Columbine, I'm not sure I could've done what they did. -
I would ask is there a difference between lying to God and lying to man by itself.
-
-
-
But that was never my question to begin with. Mine was in what constitutes a lie (or being dishonest). Not if it is right/wrong/justified. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And there was another way for her to accomplish her purpose without lying--misdirection. It is also worth nothing that she did not yet have a Jewish system of morality and ethics. For us to use Rahab as our example for action is to use a heathen system of ethics.
-
Have to give that one some thought. -
(original reports, and some persistant internet stories, claim it was Cassie Bernall; subsequent interviews with other students indicate it was Klebold and Schnurr)
If so, did you just say that if someone asked you if you believed in God, and fearful for your life, you'd consider saying "No"? -
You wrote, "Come on, Skandelon, you are capable of much better debating than this. This is a ridiculous paragraph," which is not a question, but a statement implying that I'm not debating you well and that my paragraphs are 'ridiculous,' thus you have moved from discussing the topic of God's hatred for all lies to my debating/writing skills, or lack there of. Don't worry, I wasn't offended by what you said, I just merely pointed out the fallacy so that you would recognize it for what it was and stop....and because I didn't want to resort to such things with you because I know you are too intelligent for that. (see I can use flattery too :) )
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Your view appears similar to Swindoll's The Grace Awakening, famous for teaching that all rules are wrong. I find that view very lacking. He states that positiion while going to a church that has a constitution. It's an illogical view.
-
"By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient."
Clearly the writer of this epistle under the inspiration of the Spirit thought her worthy to be listed amongst the 'great cloud of witnesses that have gone before us' by which we might follow and be encouraged. Plus, the point is not whether she is a model for ethics, the question is how God viewed her lie.
It seems like you may just have an issue with the word 'permissible.' Permissible doesn't mean 'right' or 'good' or 'wise.' It simply means permitted. You know about God's permissive will, right? He permits sin, right? That is all Paul is saying. He is permitted (not prevented) to sin, and do the wrong thing, but it wouldn't be beneficial or wise. It was beneficial and a display of true faith for Rahab to lie about the spies. That is all I'm saying. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
As for Christians not being "judged" for sin, we are not judged in eternity for sin, be we are chastised for it down here (Heb. 12).
Again, Paul clearly delineated sin as wrong in many places. Therefore it is clear that in 1 Cor. 6 Paul was not including sin. In fact, Paul clearly taught against "all things" including sin as being lawful: "And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just" (Rom. 3:8). It could not be clearer that Paul was against committing sin for a good end, "the end justifies the means."
Again, Paul wrote, "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21). This is a clear teaching that would negate using evil to overcome evil. There are many more Scriptures that I could give, but I think these are unarguably against using lies to accomplish good.
A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures: "Apparently this proverb may have been used by Paul in Corinth (repeated in 1Co 10:23), but not in the sense now used by Paul's opponents. The 'all things' do not include such matters as those condemned in chapter 1Co 5:1-13; 6:1-11. Paul limits the proverb to things not immoral, things not wrong per se."
Check your commentaries. I'm sure you'll find none to agree with you.
-
12 "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
What could "master us" if not sin?
Is sexual immorality not sin?
What act did Abraham do in faith? He raised a knife to murder his child and would have done so had he not been stopped. That is intent to murder. Where is the condemnation for that sinful act?
Page 3 of 8