- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,685
- 7,908
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is how Dietrich Bonhoeffer thought when he planned to kill Hitler and lied to many people, and justified it. Do you think God will judge him for plotting to kill Hitler and lying to the Nazis?
No you did not. Have you read Bonhoeffer?
The problem is that you automatically assume that everyone agrees with how you define the word lie.No. I don’t care to. It’s not the Bible. The problem is letting outside ideas of creating one’s own morality and goodness sneak in. I believe the father of lies is the devil. I believe it is impossible for God to lie. Therefore, God cannot commend lying. It’s a logical deduction that you have to ignore.
The problem is that you automatically assume that everyone agrees with how you define the word lie.
None. It has nothing to do with justifying a sin.I fell for that deception at one time and I used to think it was okay for the Israelite to lie during war time or to save Israelite life (i.e. the art of war) but then I abandoned that viewpoint because it is still technically lying. It’s a slippery slope to justify a particular sin in order to save life. What other sins would one be willing to commit in order to save life?
None. It has nothing to do with justifying a sin.
While I do hold to two possibilities on what happened with Rahab, I do tend to lean heavily on the possibility that Rahab did not even lie but she used clever word play with the guards. Her words were true, but they could be misread in the wrong way by her clever word play. So in short, it’s possible Rahab did not lie and so God commending Rahab for her faith for her sending out the spies another way would not have been a problem because her sending out the spies another way was not tied to any kind of lie. Anyways, whatever truly happened, I know for sure God did not commend Rahab for lying (if indeed she did lie).
If "clever word play" does not equal "lie" in your book, then Satan never lied to Eve. You're trying to dance around the fact of deception, when, in fact deception is the point.
That is still deception. The question is whether deception is always "sin."
Rahab began her deception of the enemies of Israel when she hid the spies. She further deceived the enemies of Israel by sending them in a different direction from the direction she knew the spies would take.
This is not different from David pretending to be insane before the Philistines. This is not a different situation from the Hebrew midwives in Egypt deceiving the Egyptian officials of Pharoah. This is no different from God biding Moses to tell Pharoah that they were only going into the desert for three days, when in fact God had told them to hightail it to the promised land. This is no different from Jesus telling His brothers He was not going to Jerusalem, when in fact He was going in secret (and going in secret is an entire additional deception).
Deception of the enemies of God's people in spiritual or actual combat is not a sin. It's as simple as that.
This is a huge misconnect. There is a difference between hiding a truth (or misdirection while telling the truth), vs. lying (saying something that is completely not true in any way). For example: if a person hides their safe behind a painting, that is not lying.
Both Rahab and the midwives of Exodus 1 lied.So did Rahab lie?
Rahab’s situation is more complicated and unclear. She could have lied, but if she did, God did not commend her for lying. The midwives did not lie. If they did, Pharaoh would have killed them.Both Rahab and the midwives of Exodus 1 lied.
You said:Preservation of innocent (guilty of no crime) human life trumps all moral law, is the first moral law.
Genesis 1:17 says they did.Rahab’s situation is more complicated and unclear. She could have lied, but if she did, God did not commend her for lying. The midwives did not lie.
If he knew they were lying. . .If they did, Pharaoh would have killed them.
Taking the mark of the beast is neither command, nor moral law. It is an option.So then you and your family would take the mark of the beast so as to be fed instead of starving to death?
I would rather lose my life for Christ then to lose my soul. Then again, the kind of thinking many in Christianity today are being set up for them to take the mark. Any evil can be justified as long as it is done in the name of saving life.
No, there isn't. The only difference displayed in scripture is whether the deception is against those to whom the truth is owed (a deception that would be a sin), or to the enemies of one's people (a deception that would be laudable).
Genesis 1:17 says they did.
You said:If he knew they were lying. . .
You said:Taking the mark of the beast is neither command, nor moral law. It is an option.
Oops!. . .yep.You mean Exodus 1:17.
Genesis 1 is dealing with the creation. Anyways, in Exodus 1, there is no mention of the words saying, “and the midwives lied to Pharoah”
Read this article here and make sure you carefully read the verses that they put forth and really meditate and think on those verses.
The argument in Rahab's case is assumption.
Have you stopped beating animals?Before you said, I quote: “Preservation of innocent (guilty of no crime) human life trumps all moral law, is the first moral law.”
So again, your innocent child is starving and is going to die if he does not get food.
Would you give him the mark of the beast so that he could eat food (even though it would cost him his soul with the Lord)?
Yes, or no?
My giving a child the mark of the beast is not indication of the child's denial of God.See Matthew 5:37.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?