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.
OK. But it came up and I started at the beginning and saw no answers to that.Review the thread for this information.
Clare, I am disappointed in you. You are one of the more mature commenters on CF. For the sake of the weaker Christians please tone it down.Did God lie to Pharoah (Ex 4:21-23), did Jesus lie to the apostles (Jn 7:6-10)?
Ex 1.17 - 21God disagrees with you.
See Ex 1:17-21, Jn 7:6-10 and Jas 2:25.
Did God lie to Pharoah (Ex 4:21-23), did Jesus lie to the apostle
God disagrees with you.
See Ex 1:17-21, Jn 7:6-10 and Jas 2:25.
Did God lie to Pharoah (Ex 4:21-23), did Jesus lie to the apostles (Jn 7:6-10)?
s (Jn 7:6-10)?
Indeed. . .thus saith the word of God written in Ex 1:17-21, Jn 7:6-10 and Jas 2:25..So you are actually saying "thus saith the lord." Wow.
It's about intellectual honesty.Clare, I am disappointed in you. You are one of the more mature commenters on CF. For the sake of the weaker Christians please tone it down.
You seem to transgress one of the basic of all hermeneutical principles: The clear passages of Scripture interpret the obscure passages...along with the analogy of faith.
What we see in scripture is that God is a warrior, and He does practice tactical deception in combat.
A soldier is expected to deceive the enemy but be completely truthful with his commander and comrades.
Hermeneutics says to take the most simple to help understand the less simple. You are doing the opposite.It's about intellectual honesty.
I don't see Ex 1:17-21, Jn 7:6-10 and Jas 2:25 as "obscure," but rather as plain statements, and regard it as intellectual dishonesty to obscure them.
Likewise, I see mitigation of a plain text to obscurity as a slippery slope, while I understand basic hermeneutics to be taking Scripture at its word; e.g., Ex 1:17-21, Jn 7:6-10, Jas 2:25, and harmonizing it with the rest of Scripture without having to mitigate any of it to obsurity.
I am in agreement with:
So we are like Muslims now? Lie to your enemy, but truth to your friends?I will agree with you on this one.
What we see in scripture is that God is a warrior, and He does practice tactical deception in combat.
A soldier is expected to deceive the enemy but be completely truthful with his commander and comrades.
Reconciliation is not about more and less, it's about agreement with all Scripture, where both "more" and "less" are in agreement with all Scripture, not just each other.Hermeneutics says to take the most simple to help understand the less simple. You are doing the opposite.
Peace and Blessings
Not everything heathens do is a sin for Christians.So we are like Muslims now? Lie to your enemy, but truth to your friends?
Are we not supposed to do unto our enemy good? Even the heathens give truth to friends.
Analogies usually break down nearly immediately. Which is why scripture is best. We are not talking about men. We are talking about the nature of God and if Lies are part of His nature. They are not. They are part of man's nature. Analogies of man applied to God are Never accurate.
Peace and Blessings
False equivalencies in many of your posts.Not everything heathens do is a sin for Christians.
And, no, we don't always do good for our enemies. You would not, for instance, set aside ammunition for your enemy in case he runs out while shooting Christians or light his torch if it goes out while he's burning Christians.
If giving him the truth would only facilitate his crime, do not give him the truth.
I do not like hearing that.Clare, I am disappointed in you.
I don't see Ex 1:17-21, Jas 2:25 as obscure, but as self evident, as is Nu 23:19.You are one of the more mature commenters on CF. For the sake of the weaker Christians please tone it down.
You seem to transgress one of the basic of all hermeneutical principles: The clear passages of Scripture interpret the obscure passages...along with the analogy of faith.
Would not theodicy (vindication of God) be the one who mitigates texts regarding God to make them less "offensive" and more palatable, rather than the one who takes Biblical texts at their word, letting them speak for themselves in reconciliation with those other texts which they find to be more agreeable?Let's not go down this road of the theodicy....Christians are to defend against the theodicy....you seem to raise and promote it.
please think and pray about this.
I do not like hearing that.
I hear you, but. . .
I have often noticed the "practice of mitigation" of particular texts in reconciling them to what seem to be opposing texts.
I have also noticed that doubters of Scripture are sometimes more intellectually honest in regard to the texts of Scripture than are believers of Scripture.
The Holy Spirit gives my intellectual honesty to take Scripture at its word, and not to tone it down or to mitigate it to make it more palatable (to weaker Christians).
It requires me to reconcile Scripture taken at its word with all other Scripture, not allowing the mitigating of plain text.
I also see that kind of reconciliation; e.g., between Ex 1:17-21, Jn 7:6-10, Jas 2:25 and the proscription of lying (Ex 20:16), as authoritative in relation to one another. . .and have expressed that authority as "trumping of one over another."
I do not see "hermeneutic" as meaning or requiring that we mitigate any text.
Neither Ex 1:17-21, Jn 7:6-10, Jas 2:25 nor Nu 23:19 must be mitigated in order to reconcile them.
Both can be taken at their full meaning and still be in agreement.
Likewise, I have found that mitigating God's truth causes all sorts of arguments to be introduced to settle the matter;
e.g., did God lie to Pharoah (Ex 4:21-23), did Jesus lie to the apostles (Jn 7:6-10)?
And I see those arguments as a greater problem for weaker Christians than the texts under discussion.
I say letting the Scriptures say what they say without clipping their wings is the most effective way for all to deal with the Scriptures.
Who is doing theodicy (vindication of God), the one who mitigates texts regarding God to make them less "offensive" and more palatable, or the one who takes Biblical texts at their word, letting them speak for themselves in reconciliation with those texts they find more agreeable?
Which is actually more Biblically profitable for weak Christians, mitigation or reconciliation?
Agreed. . .the issue here is not omnipotence nor benevolence.Theodicy is defined as a theological construct that attempts to vindicate God in response to the problem of evil that appears inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.
Pealace and Blessings
Hi thereAgreed. . .the issue here is not omnipotence nor benevolence.
It is morality--law keeping, sin--by lying in the preservation of the lives of Moses, the spies and Jesus in Ex 1:17-21, Jas 2:25 and Jn 7:6-10. Let's not try to mitigate the texts.
It seems to me you are thinking with feelings. We do not take action based upon feelings. We take action based upon love and truth. Let your actions guide your feelings. Not the other way around.Sometimes, people lie to save others' feelings and constitution. It is not their intention to hurt or harm. Much of the language of scripture speaks of bearing false witness against your neighbor. Don't lie to your neighbor to do him harm. Don't go to court and lie on the stand to incriminate another. You have to listen to your heart. Stodgy observance of a rule that will injure another is not the point. You have to love. Love will not hurt someone for no reason. An example:
Would you tell a young girl she is fat, even when it is true?
Understood.It seems to me you are thinking with feelings. We do not take action based upon feelings. We take action based upon love and truth. Let your actions guide your feelings. Not the other way around.
Love does not come in the form of lies.
Lies, when found to be untrue, cause others to question everything you say. Weakening or destroying your witness.
Making up fictitious examples for why one should like is not how life works. There is a tone of context to be observed. Relationship, trust, situation, etc. Lying need not be an option with there are endless other honest options.
Peace and Blessings.
Gods word is the truth, how is mans word truth, when it cant agree to Gods testimony ?Sometimes, people lie to save others' feelings and constitution. It is not their intention to hurt or harm. Much of the language of scripture speaks of bearing false witness against your neighbor. Don't lie to your neighbor to do him harm. Don't go to court and lie on the stand to incriminate another. You have to listen to your heart. Stodgy observance of a rule that will injure another is not the point. You have to love. Love will not hurt someone for no reason. An example:
Would you tell a young girl she is fat, even when it is true?
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?