Did God commend or approve Rahab's lie?

[Bible Highlighter]

The argument in Rahab's case is assumption.

Whatever the case with Rahab, God is good and His good ways are manifested outwardly, too.
Meaning, when Scripture says God is good, that is not just a blind statement (Whereby we shut off our conscience), but that is provable in the way the Lord behaves, and makes judgments, and teaches truth. A good tree can only bring forth good fruit.

Likewise, that means if a serial killer breaks into my home, I must tell him the truth about the number and names of my children and where he can find them--all playing in the neighbor's yard.

Who said you have to say anything?
Besides, what other sins is one willing to do to protect life?

Not buyin' it. . .preservation of innocent (guilty of no crime) human life trumps all moral law, and is the first moral law.

This sounds totally unbiblical. Chapter and verse in the Bible please.

Have you stopped beating animals?

Yes or no?

I am actually a born again Christian who believes in Non-Violence as taught by Jesus and His followers. I see it as a major violation to treat even animals with cruelty. So not sure where you thinking on this is going here. Your false claim does not really have anything to do with what we are talking about.

My giving a child the mark of the beast is not indication of the child's denial of God.
And denying God is not a moral law against my neighbor, which moral law is trumped by preservation of life.
Denying God is against God himself, who trumps all mankind.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

These are great verses to meditate on here:

Isaiah 26:10 (NKJV)
“Let grace be shown to the wicked, Yet he will not learn righteousness; In the land of uprightness he will deal unjustly, And will not behold the majesty of the LORD.”

Hebrews 5:14
“But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

 

[Bible Highlighter]

2 John 1:6

One is not walking after His commandments if they are violating them.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Could Hitler not be condemned by God for killing the Jews if his conscience was clear or didn't bother him?

Short answer: No.

 

[JAL]

Could Hitler not be condemned by God for killing the Jews if his conscience was clear or didn't bother him?

Short answer: No.

Is this supposed to be a rebuttal to my post 157? You're dead wrong. Let's paraphrase your argument like this:

"Could [Moses/Joshua/David] not be condemned by God for killing [millions] if his conscience was clear or didn't bother him? Short answer: No."

"Could [Abraham] not be condemned by God for [attempted] killing [of his son] if his conscience was clear or didn't bother him? Short answer: No."

So in your view, God was supposed to condemn Moses, Joshua, David, and Abraham? I mean, they claimed to hear voices, but how did they know for sure it was God speaking? Let me explain how Direct Revelation works. God knows that the only real authority is conscience. Therefore, when He spoke a command to a prophet, He first had to convict/convince the prophet's conscience that the deed was morally upright. Therefore these men murdered people with clear conscience. Naturally, then, Scripture celebrates all their (attempted) slaughters, ranking them among the most righteous acts of human history (James 2:21 Hebrews 11:17 Hebrews 11:33).

There are no possible exceptions to the rule of conscience as defined at post 157. You certainly haven't discovered any exceptions. Conclusion: God will hold Hitler innocent and harmless for anything he did with a clear conscience. But all men have sinned, including Hitler, so he remains condemned if he did not accept Christ as His Lord and Savior.

Seems your "short answer" merited a long reply.

 

[Clare73]

Whatever the case with Rahab, God is good and His good ways are manifested outwardly, too.

Precisely. . .and a "good God" would have innocent (guilty of no crime) human life protected.

Meaning, when Scripture says God is good, that is not just a blind statement (Whereby we shut off our conscience), but that is provable in the way the Lord behaves, and makes judgments, and teaches truth. A good tree can only bring forth good fruit.
Who said you have to say anything?

You seriously think a criminal is not capable of making you speak?

Besides, what other sins is one willing to do to protect life?

The same sins David and the priest would be willing to commit in 1 Samuel 21.

This sounds totally unbiblical. Chapter and verse in the Bible please.

Review this thread for half a dozen of those.

I am actually a born again Christian who believes in Non-Violence as taught by Jesus and His followers. I see it as a major violation to treat even animals with cruelty. So not sure where you thinking on this is going here. Your false claim does not really have anything to do with what we are talking about.

Your answer must be only "yes or no," as you instructed me.

 

[Der Alte]

* * *
As a sidenote, most Christians think that biblical exegesis - scholarly analysis - is the best way to learn His rules/laws. In truth, Direct Revelation is the ONLY way to be sure of His specific will for your life. "My sheep listen to my voice" (John 10:27).

The founders of certain unorthodox religious groups such as SDA, JW, LDS et alia. all claimed to have "direct revelation" from God. When that happens the wise should resort to Biblical exegesis and scholarly analysis.
When the writers of the Bible wrote what God inspired them to write, if they were to be understood by their intended audiences, they had to write words that their audiences understood.
They did not write in some Holy Bible language that only a few could understand. They used the common languages of their audiences.
And a warning about Strong's. Many people think that Strong's makes them an expert in Hebrew and Greek. Strong's has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions. Strong's is not a lexicon; it does not define words. Strong's only lists how words were translated in the 1611 KJV, right or wrong. And some are wrong e.g., the word ἁρπαγμον/[h]arpagmon in Philp 2:6 incorrectly translated "robbery."

 

[Clare73]

2 John 1:6

One is not walking after His commandments if they are violating them.

Tell it to James 2:25; Hebrews 11:31.

 

[JAL]

The founders of certain unorthodox religious groups such as SDA, JW, LDS et alia. all claimed to have "direct revelation" from God. When that happens the wise should resort to Biblical exegesis and scholarly analysis.

When someone from "SDA, JW, LDS, et alia," (to use your examples) makes a claim, our understandable inclination is to check it out with Scripture. You're right about that. HOWEVER, the real problem is that we Christians are spiritually immature - we are not prophets who hear God clearly and THAT is why we are forced, as a crutch, to resort to a scholarly analysis of Scripture. Paul urged the entire church to seek prophethood (1 Cor 14:1).

Any Direct Revelation - or any so-called "revelation" alleged by "SDA, JW, LDS et alia." - is authoritative over us if, and only if, the rule of conscience demands it because, as stated, there are no possible exceptions to that rule as defined at post 157.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Precisely. . .and a "good God" would have innocent (guilty of no crime) human life protected.

Jesus (God Almighty in the flesh) who was the most innocent person alive was not protected when it came to his human life. He died. So your rule is broken.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Tell it to James 2:25; Hebrews 11:31.

Please show me the exact words in those verses that proves your case here.
In other words, if these verses say, and God commended Rahab for lying, then you would be right. But these verses do not say that. You are merely making an assumption upon these verses involving your own wrong interpretation.

 

[Clare73]

Jesus (God Almighty in the flesh) who was the most innocent person alive was not protected when it came to his human life. He died. So your rule is broken.

Nope. . .you're reaching. . .he came to die as a ransom (Matthew 20:28), his life was not unwillingly taken from him, as would be the case in the examples provided in this thread.

 

[Clare73]

Please show me the exact words in those verses that proves your case here.

When you show me the words that disapprove of the actions of those persons.
Read the verses to see the words that show otherwise.

And what precisely does the ninth commandment forbid?

The actions under discussion here do not fit the description of that commandment.

 

[JAL]

Please show me the exact words in those verses that proves your case here.
In other words, if these verses say, and God commended Rahab for lying, then you would be right. But these verses do not say that. You are merely making an assumption upon these verses involving your own wrong interpretation.

Seriously? It's your position that James 2:25; Hebrews 11:31 are not commending Rahab? You've literally opted for the most implausible reading conceivable.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Nope. . .you're reaching. . .he came to die as a ransom (Matthew 20:28), his life was not unwillingly taken from him, as would be the case in the examples provided in this thread.

You said, I quote: “Preservation of innocent (guilty of no crime) human life trumps all moral law, is the first moral law.”

In other words, your rule was to save life at all costs and any moral law is trumped by the saving of innocent life. There was no clause of exception given by your before. You just gave a general rule (with no exceptions). So my point in Scripture refutes your previous rule or statement.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

When you show me the words that disapprove of the actions of those persons.
Read the verses to see the words that show otherwise.

And what precisely does the ninth commandment forbid?

The actions under discussion here do not fit the description of that commandment.

Jesus defined one’s neighbor as the poor beat up guy on the side of the road (Luke 10:29-37). Jesus did not say to check to see if this was an enemy of Israel and therefore do not help them.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Seriously? It's your position that James 2:25; Hebrews 11:31 are not commending Rahab? You've literally opted for the most implausible reading conceivable.

Okay. I said God is not commending her for lying. Notice that the actions God is commending Rahab for are actually good things she did and not her actually lying. God is commending Rahab for particular things she did that were not a lie. Look at the verses again. Nowhere does it say that God is commending her for lying.

 

[Clare73]

You said, I quote: “Preservation of innocent (guilty of no crime) human life trumps all moral law, is the first moral law.”

In other words, your rule was to save life at all costs and any moral law is trumped by
the saving of innocent life. There was no clause of exception given by your before. You just gave a general rule (with no exceptions). So my point in Scripture refutes your previous rule or statement.

However, he took on our guilt, so in God's eyes he was not innocent, the only ones to whom the rule applies, and it is God one who had his life taken to pay the penalty for that guilt which he bore (Acts 4:28).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

However, he took on our guilt, so in God's eyes he was not innocent, the only ones to whom the rule applies, and it is God one who had his life taken to pay the penalty for that guilt (Acts 4:28).

Again, this exception clause was not noted in your original statement.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Seriously? It's your position that James 2:25; Hebrews 11:31 are not commending Rahab? You've literally opted for the most implausible reading conceivable.

Watch this video:

Please keep in mind I disagree with their interpretation on 1 John 1:8.
But I like the video because it is defending God and His goodness and it sets an example for us to do good. Most today in Christianity are seeking to justify sin on some level (from my experience). So I am not surprised against all the blowback I am getting on this by me defending the goodness of God.