Is lying moral for Christians?

[ViaCrucis]

How is it out of context? He did say that.

It seemed like you were suggesting that Augustine's "Give me chastity...but not yet" was an honest reflection of Augustine's thoughts as a practicing Christian--but it wasn't, it was about him when as a horny teenager not wanting to give up trying to get laid and living licentiously.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Freodin]

Muslims mainly defend that rule by saying it's meant for situations where admitting they were Muslim would get them killed or something, and that may have been the original intent, but many Muslims use it to justify lying for personal gain, just like you accuse Christians of doing.

I do not deny that Muslim do that. Being Muslim doesn't keep you from being a hypocrite... just like Christians. Or Atheists.
But if they do it, they would go against there religious rules... contrary to what Johnny claimed.

 

[Freodin]

That door swings both ways.

You mean "if you place loving your neighbors above your religious rights, you are doings something wrong"?

Well, I'd rather err on the side of loving my neighbor.

 

[Freodin]

What if a part of loving your neighbor, as it is set by principle within one's paradigm, also includes not only expressing verbal articulations that your neighbor is morally wrong, but also resistance against general legal requirements for complicity that, if obeyed, would deny the basic principles of your paradigm?

Legal requirements nonwithstanding... here you place your "basic principles" over the other "basic principle" of loving your neighbor.
It is your decision what you think is more important: some specific religious laws, or a general principle that the founder of your religion stated as one of only two really important rules.

Oh, yes, I know that there are many Christians see "love God with all your heart" as synonymous with "keep all the commandments"... but this results in the interpretation of "keep all the laws, and if that still leaves room for it, love your neighbors as yourself".

Another stumbling block is the old Christian topos of "God knows what is in your heart". In all these cases, there is no obligation for the business-owner to "sin". It all comes down to "be seen as not disagreeing with sin". God knows your mind. If the opinion of your fellow humans is more important to you than a divine commandment to love your neighbors... you are doing something wrong.

 

[Soyeong]

Recently I read a thread where I couldn't directly comment.

Basically, it was about the ongoing question about how "Christian" business-owners could deal with "sinful" customers. I have my own opinions on that general question, but these are irrelevant here. I don't want to discuss this question here.

But what really surprised my was the number of Christians how gave the advise of "lie about it". Say that you are busy, not taking new customers... whatever. Don't take the customers, but don't tell him the real reasons... that you don't want to have anything to do with their "sin".

Now I can understand the discussion about the general morality (or immorality) of lying - the old "there's a Jewish family hiding in the attic and the GESTAPO is asking you" dilemma.

But how does a Christian defend lying for his own personal gain?

There are a number of laws in the Bible that appear to contradict each other, such as what happens when someone wanted to obey the command to circumcise a baby boy on the 8th day and it happened to fall on the Sabbath. It was not the case that they were forced to sin by breaking one of the laws no matter what they chose to do, but that one of the laws was never intended to prohibit the other law from being obeyed, and in this case, the Sabbath was never intended to prevent circumcision on the 8th day. Another example of this is whether it is permissible to do the work of healing someone on the Sabbath, so some people thought that Sabbath had priority, whereas Jesus ruled that it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath, so it was never intended to prohibit healing. In general, no low is intended to be used as an excuse to prevent us for obeying the two greatest commands. So I think it can be argued that there are scenarios where the command to love our neighbor takes priority over the command not to lie, but we should be aware of our desire for personal gain so that we do not allow it to influence our decision.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Well, I'd rather err on the side of loving my neighbor.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

 

[jeancommunicates]

God hates a liar. Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV
These six things doth the Lord HATE; yea, seven are an abomination unto him.
A proud look, a LYING TONGUE, and hands that shed innocent blood (abortion).
A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh LIES, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

 

[zephcom]

Recently I read a thread where I couldn't directly comment.

Basically, it was about the ongoing question about how "Christian" business-owners could deal with "sinful" customers. I have my own opinions on that general question, but these are irrelevant here. I don't want to discuss this question here.

But what really surprised my was the number of Christians how gave the advise of "lie about it". Say that you are busy, not taking new customers... whatever. Don't take the customers, but don't tell him the real reasons... that you don't want to have anything to do with their "sin".

Now I can understand the discussion about the general morality (or immorality) of lying - the old "there's a Jewish family hiding in the attic and the GESTAPO is asking you" dilemma.

But how does a Christian defend lying for his own personal gain?

Given what Jesus taught, one could ask how a Christian can defend doing -anything- for their personal gain. Lying is just one aspect of doing things for one's personal gain.

This is just another example of how disconnected with Jesus Christianity has become.

Jesus taught this:
“Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God."
Mark 10:18

And this:
“Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
Matthew 7:1-5


And this:
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Matthew 22:25-28

A Follower of Jesus would have no need to lie to a same sex couple who wanted him to bake their wedding cake because 1) no one is good save God so the baker can not claim righteousness over the couple, 2) the baker would have to first cleanse his own soul before lecturing or denying the couple about the cake, and 3) his place in the this world is as a servant or slave if the baker desires a high place in the next world.

The Follower of Jesus need only say, "I would love to make your cake. How can I best serve you." For a Follower of Jesus, that would not be a lie.

Christianity today behaves more like the Pharisees of Jesus' day than a true representative of Jesus when it teaches that a Christian should put him/herself above others with outward expressions of self-righteousness.

 

[Kenny'sID]

But how does a Christian defend lying for his own personal gain?

In my book, they can't.

 

[Par5]

Recently I read a thread where I couldn't directly comment.

Basically, it was about the ongoing question about how "Christian" business-owners could deal with "sinful" customers. I have my own opinions on that general question, but these are irrelevant here. I don't want to discuss this question here.

But what really surprised my was the number of Christians how gave the advise of "lie about it". Say that you are busy, not taking new customers... whatever. Don't take the customers, but don't tell him the real reasons... that you don't want to have anything to do with their "sin".

Now I can understand the discussion about the general morality (or immorality) of lying - the old "there's a Jewish family hiding in the attic and the GESTAPO is asking you" dilemma.

But how does a Christian defend lying for his own personal gain?

All I can say is that if a Christian business-owner decided to take the advice not to do business with "sinful" customers, then he might as well shut up shop and take up stamp collecting or something. After all, aren't Christians forever telling us that we are all "sinners", Christians included!

 

[Strathos]

All I can say is that if a Christian business-owner decided to take the advice not to do business with "sinful" customers, then he might as well shut up shop and take up stamp collecting or something. After all, aren't Christians forever telling us that we are all "sinners", Christians included!

Everyone is a sinner but it's still good to avoid sin. Just like you can never completely avoid bacteria, but that doesn't make it a good idea to jump into a pile of garbage.

 

[Par5]

Everyone is a sinner but it's still good to avoid sin. Just like you can never completely avoid bacteria, but that doesn't make it a good idea to jump into a pile of garbage.

It's never a good idea for anyone to jump into a pile of garbage, but the original question on this thread, posted by Freodin, asked if Christians should lie to avoid having to do business with people they considered to be sinful. The question creates a paradox as Christians believe all are sinners
However, overlooking that, how would Christians determine who was sinful? What criteria would they use to arrive at that conclusion?
If they knew that doing business with someone would benefit that person doing something illegal, then there would be no need to lie to avoid doing business. A straight refusal to do business would be all that was needed.
On the other hand, if confronted by an ill person who was a convicted violent criminal, someone most people would consider to be a bad person, should a Christian doctor lie to avoid treating him, refuse to treat him, or do what he took an oath to do and treat him?

 

[ViaCrucis]

The obvious thing here is that Christians aren't called to cease interacting with "sinners", or avoid business with "sinners". As St. Paul writes,

"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside." - 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

The Apostle here refers to his previous letter to the Corinthians (which we don't have and is lost to us), and how he told them to not associate with certain people, but he makes it clear that he's not talking about people outside of the Church, but specifically means people in the Church. People who call themselves Christians but engage in certain toxic behaviors and show no remorse for their behavior. The statement "do not even eat with such a one" comes across as harsh, but is best remembered to be in a context of a period where sharing a meal in one's house with someone was an act of intimacy, and here a Christian who so flagrantly acts in such a toxic manner should not have their toxic behavior validated by intimate fellowship. Fundamentally here, Paul says that he--nor we for that matter--are in any position to judge those outside of the Church, because that's not our business here. We can't force our own ways upon those who aren't committed to the same things we are: e.g. a Pagan offering a sacrifice to their gods at the local temple is a very different thing than if a Christian, who confesses there to be only one God and the worship of false gods to be idolatry, to do the same thing. As Paul says here, if we were not to associate with those outside of the Church at all, then we'd have to somehow leave the world, such a thing is both impossible and superfluous.

Paul is concerned with the integrity of the community, that those who call themselves Christian ought not engage in certain behaviors which are toxic and completely forbidden in the Church--idolatry, alcohol abuse, extortion, abuse, or prostitution (translated as "sexually immoral" here). It's worth noting that some of these terms don't carry the same intensity and severity in their English translation as they do in their Greek, translated as "reviler" here refers to an extremely abusive person, someone who is excessively cruel with their words and seeks to demean, threaten, and hurt another person with language; and translated as "robber", sometimes as "extortioner", speaks not merely of someone who steals, but rather a "rapacious person", someone who violently takes by force.

Frankly, a Christian who uses deceit, manipulation, and such measures to avoid engaging honestly, kindly, respectfully, and lovingly with other persons is probably the exact sort of person that Paul would suggest is engaging in a sort of toxic behavior that brings disrepute to the Church.

-CryptoLutheran