Lying is always bad???

[Grega]

I've been away for a while but...

Keeping your posts objective and scripture free, why is it that in all cases lying is intrinsically bad such that your God, whom you define to be Good cannot lie?

I ask you refrain from throwing scripture at this thread because even if you tell me the Bible says God cannot lie; I know it says this, and this response is valid only if you first accept the premise that the Bible is true/ and inspired by a God that didn't lie when he 'inspired' that bit.

To put it simply, what makes lying bad?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

First; while the act of lying is always wrong - it may be justified. Concealing the location of someone to protect them for example. We justify murder, taking the life of another human in some situations. It does not make taking the life a good thing in those cases, it is still an evil.

I think in evaluating an act, it can only be good, bad or perhaps neutral. Lying is the opposite of telling the truth. Few would argue that telling the truth is a bad thing. There may be times when telling the truth is inconvenient, but that is a matter of the situation and does not make the act itself bad.

Good and bad are opposites. One would think the opposite of telling the truth, which we presume all see truth as good, would be bad. Lying is therefore a bad act.

 

[Grega]

First; while the act of lying is always wrong - it may be justified. Concealing the location of someone to protect them for example. We justify murder, taking the life of another human in some situations. It does not make taking the life a good thing in those cases, it is still an evil.

I think in evaluating an act, it can only be good, bad or perhaps neutral. Lying is the opposite of telling the truth. Few would argue that telling the truth is a bad thing. There may be times when telling the truth is inconvenient, but that is a matter of the situation and does not make the act itself bad.

Good and bad are opposites. One would think the opposite of telling the truth, which we presume all see truth as good, would be bad. Lying is therefore a bad act.

For your first paragraph, why is lying always wrong? (by 'wrong' I don't mean an assertion that X is true when it is infact false! I mean the other type of wrong, ie: unacceptable, deplorable, morally low, etc..)

Your last paragraph is problematic.
I don't presume to see truth as good (as you put it). It may be true that in many cases truth might be good, but why is it true that there exist no cases where lying is good?, the 'therefore' part of this paragraph seems premature.

If for example, your God telling us humans that he cannot lie is an efficient means of convincing us humans that we should strive to tell the truth, (because in more cases it is the better thing to do), then would this lie be bad if it achieves his objectives by perhaps the simplest and most economical means?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I think we must distinguish between what might be justified with what we mean by wrong. Saying lying is always wrong does not mean it is never justified. We similarly justify killing in some cases but the act of taking life is still and always wrong.

If we catorigize things as being morally either good, bad or neutral it does not follow that a good or neutral thing cannot be corrupted by a situation or our motives.

A baseball bat is neither good or bad, it is morally neutral. Used for it's intended purpose the act is a good thing (the grandslam being the greatest good). Take the same bat and bash someone's head for revenge and we have a bad act. In neither case does the bat become good or bad, it remains morally neutral.

If we look at the question of the morality of an action we must look at three things; the situation (which is relative and objective); the absolute and objective principle(s) at work; and the subjective motive. If any of these three are wrong, then the action is immoral. In that view there could be situations were telling the truth would be immoral, wrong thing to do.

If some are unwilling to admit there can be absolute and objective principles, then we need to discuss that first as it makes no sense to speak of whether something is good or bad if there are no absolute and objective principles.

Once we admit there are absolute and objective principles, then the question becomes whether lying is wrong or conversely always telling the truth is right are one of those principles. Only if we agree that those are absolute principles can we then discuss why it might be justified to violate such a principle in some circumstances.

In short, while lying is always wrong, it may be the right thing to do in some situations. (just like taking a life might be)

 

[Grega]

I think we must distinguish between what might be justified with what we mean by wrong. Saying lying is always wrong does not mean it is never justified. We similarly justify killing in some cases but the act of taking life is still and always wrong.

If we catorigize things as being morally either good, bad or neutral it does not follow that a good or neutral thing cannot be corrupted by a situation or our motives.

A baseball bat is neither good or bad, it is morally neutral. Used for it's intended purpose the act is a good thing (the grandslam being the greatest good). Take the same bat and bash someone's head for revenge and we have a bad act. In neither case does the bat become good or bad, it remains morally neutral.

If we look at the question of the morality of an action we must look at three things; the situation (which is relative and objective); the absolute and objective principle(s) at work; and the subjective motive. If any of these three are wrong, then the action is immoral. In that view there could be situations were telling the truth would be immoral, wrong thing to do.

If some are unwilling to admit there can be absolute and objective principles, then we need to discuss that first as it makes no sense to speak of whether something is good or bad if there are no absolute and objective principles.

Once we admit there are absolute and objective principles, then the question becomes whether lying is wrong or conversely always telling the truth is right are one of those principles. Only if we agree that those are absolute principles can we then discuss why it might be justified to violate such a principle in some circumstances.

In short, while lying is always wrong, it may be the right thing to do in some situations. (just like taking a life might be)

I think we must distinguish between what might be justified with what we mean by wrong. Saying lying is always wrong does not mean it is never justified. We similarly justify killing in some cases but the act of taking life is still and always wrong.
I still fail to see how lying fits the criteria for being 'wrong'! Similarly, until you invoke the constraints set by human society or provide a rigorous justification demonstrating that in all cases killing is always disadvantageous to humans, ie: the sum of disadvantages is always greater than the sum of advantages that result from the act of killing another human (note here I'm being generous by restricting your attention to only one species: humans), I fail to see why killing must always be 'wrong'.
In short, what do you mean by 'wrong'?
Something decreed by God??? this would render our discussions tautological from your perspective and pointless from mine!

If we catorigize things as being morally either good, bad or neutral it does not follow that a good or neutral thing cannot be corrupted by a situation or our motives.
Is 3 sets really sufficient? Is there a criteria in place such that the assignment of neutral, bad, or good is always well defined for each 'thing'?

A baseball bat is neither good or bad, it is morally neutral. Used for it's intended purpose the act is a good thing (the grandslam being the greatest good). Take the same bat and bash someone's head for revenge and we have a bad act. In neither case does the bat become good or bad, it remains morally neutral.
I now have to be careful that this analogy translates correctly when applied to lying.
We could say that communication is morally neutral and that how you use it (ie: lying, conveying useful information, telling jokes etc...) would be things that are as you would suggest either neutral, good, or bad.
I suspect however you want to suggest that lying is morally bad, and that what you do with lies based on the the circumstances dictate whether that the outcome is neutral, bad, or good. Not only does this lose something in the translation, but it again begs the question: why is lying morally bad?

If we look at the question of the morality of an action we must look at three things; the situation (which is relative and objective); the absolute and objective principle(s) at work; and the subjective motive. If any of these three are wrong, then the action is immoral. In that view there could be situations were telling the truth would be immoral, wrong thing to do.
I need more convincing before I accept this statement, furthermore I could use it to show that you contradict yourself by your earlier statement: "Few would argue that telling the truth is a bad thing. There may be times when telling the truth is inconvenient, but that is a matter of the situation and does not make the act itself bad. "
For what it's worth I choose not to respond in any way (except this!) that invokes the actions God is said to have performed in the Bible, partly because I don't think I need to (at this stage), and secondly, I don't want to cloud the discussion.

If some are unwilling to admit there can be absolute and objective principles, then we need to discuss that first as it makes no sense to speak of whether something is good or bad if there are no absolute and objective principles.
Before I accept there are objective rights and wrongs I have to first see the criteria for such and then decide whether or not they are sound.

Once we admit there are absolute and objective principles, then the question becomes whether lying is wrong or conversely always telling the truth is right are one of those principles. Only if we agree that those are absolute principles can we then discuss why it might be justified to violate such a principle in some circumstances.
Even if we did admit such (and that is far, far away for me) you'd still have to demonstrate how lying fits, in all cases, the criteria for being objectively 'wrong'

In short, while lying is always wrong, it may be the right thing to do in some situations. (just like taking a life might be)
It is too early to say this

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I've been away for a while but...

Keeping your posts objective and scripture free, why is it that in all cases lying is intrinsically bad such that your God, whom you define to be Good cannot lie?

I ask you refrain from throwing scripture at this thread because even if you tell me the Bible says God cannot lie; I know it says this, and this response is valid only if you first accept the premise that the Bible is true/ and inspired by a God that didn't lie when he 'inspired' that bit.

To put it simply, what makes lying bad?

Unfortunately, there is no way to explain why God has declared something sinful without examining what the Bible has to say.

Since you've already stated that you don't want to hear why the Bible tells us God has declared lying to be a sin, there's no point in wasting time trying to answer your question.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

If for example, your God telling us humans that he cannot lie

That comes from the Bible. I thought you didn't care what the Bible says.

is an efficient means of convincing us humans that we should strive to tell the truth, (because in more cases it is the better thing to do), then would this lie be bad if it achieves his objectives by perhaps the simplest and most economical means?

What you're talking about is pragmatism. God does not declare lying to be a sin because of pragmatism, but for another very important reason that you don't want to hear.

 

[Grega]

Unfortunately, there is no way to explain why God has declared something sinful without examining what the Bible has to say.

Since you've already stated that you don't want to hear why the Bible tells us God has declared lying to be a sin, there's no point in wasting time trying to answer your question.

I interpret this as: you need the Bible to prove the Bible.
This of course works for you but thats as far as it goes.

Thankyou for your valuable input

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I interpret this as: you need the Bible to prove the Bible.
This of course works for you but thats as far as it goes.

Thankyou for your valuable input

No, I never said anything about "proving the Bible". Frankly, I don't care if you believe the Bible or not.

You asked a question about what Christianity teaches about the nature and character of God, and why God cannot lie.

The Bible is God's revelation to man and tells us who God is and why God does what He does.

It's a little unreasonable of you to come to a Christian message board and ask Christians about the nature and character of God without referring to God's revelation of His nature and character and will.

I also think it's more than just a little hypocritical that you tell us that we're not to refer to scripture, but then you turn around and cite scripture.

If you want to know why God doesn't lie and why God has declared lying a sin, I can answer that for you but first, we need to examine who God is and we cannot do that without scripture.

 

[Grega]

No, I never said anything about "proving the Bible". Frankly, I don't care if you believe the Bible or not.

You asked a question about what Christianity teaches about the nature and character of God, and why God cannot lie.

The Bible is God's revelation to man and tells us who God is and why God does what He does.

It's a little unreasonable of you to come to a Christian message board and ask Christians about the nature and character of God without referring to God's revelation of His nature and character and will.

I also think it's more than just a little hypocritical that you tell us that we're not to refer to scripture, but then you turn around and cite scripture.

If you want to know why God doesn't lie and why God has declared lying a sin, I can answer that for you but first, we need to examine who God is and we cannot do that without scripture.

Firstly, I cited nothing from scripture. Secondly I noted in my OP that I am aware your Bible says God cannot lie and I have invoked nothing more than that.

If lying is bad because God says it is bad then you have to convince me how and why God couldn't have lied when he inspired that. This needs to be done independently of the Bible else you are presenting to me nothing more than a circular argument.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Firstly, I cited nothing from scripture.

Yes, you did.

You made reference to Numbers 23:19 in the OP.

Secondly I noted in my OP that I am aware your Bible says God cannot lie and I have invoked nothing more than that.

There you go again. You made another reference to the Bible.

If lying is bad because God says it is bad then you have to convince me how and why God couldn't have lied when he inspired that. This needs to be done independently of the Bible else you are presenting to me nothing more than a circular argument.

Actually, that's not what circular reasoning is.

An example of circular reasoning would be something like "'A' is true because 'B' says that 'A' is true and if 'A' is true, then 'B' must be correct".

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about using the Bible to explain why God does something, not to prove that it is true.

 

[Grega]

Yes, you did.

You made reference to Numbers 23:19 in the OP.



There you go again. You made another reference to the Bible.



Actually, that's not what circular reasoning is.

An example of circular reasoning would be something like "'A' is true because 'B' says that 'A' is true and if 'A' is true, then 'B' must be correct".

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about using the Bible to explain why God does something, not to prove that it is true.

Your first part of this response is nonsense and you seem to have gotten yourself all riled up over something. I can't be bothered responding to you in any further detail on this.

For your second
Bible says God can't lie ==> God can't lie ==> Bible is truthful when it says God can't lie ==> God can't lie...and so on

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Your first part of this response is nonsense

You know, I feel I've been very respectful to you. I don't think there's any reason for you to be rude.

and you seem to have gotten yourself all riled up over something. I can't be bothered responding to you in any further detail on this.

That's fine with me.

For your second
Bible says God can't lie ==> God can't lie ==> Bible is truthful when it says God can't lie ==> God can't lie...and so on

Again, I'm not trying to convince you that the Bible is true. I'm only trying to answer your question about why God cannot lie and why God has declared lying to be a sin.

I just don't understand why you would ask the question if you don't want to know the answer.

But, in any event, it's clear that you're just trolling, so goodbye.

 

[Grega]

You know, I feel I've been very respectful to you. I don't think there's any reason for you to be rude.



That's fine with me.



Again, I'm not trying to convince you that the Bible is true. I'm only trying to answer your question about why God cannot lie and why God has declared lying to be a sin.

I just don't understand why you would ask the question if you don't want to know the answer.

But, in any event, it's clear that you're just trolling, so goodbye.

Actually it is you who jumped in here with little more than a statement you didn't want to waste your time on me and a few pointless snipeshots, you haven't actually been respectful, and your lack of meaningful input demonstrates it is infact yourself being the troll so please...stop playing games

Secondly why your God cannot lie needs to be answered independently of the Bible precisely because it is a claim he cannot lie. I can always ask: "what if he lied when he inspired/wrote that part of the Bible?"

 

[ebia]

I've been away for a while but...

Keeping your posts objective and scripture free, why is it that in all cases lying is intrinsically bad such that your God, whom you define to be Good cannot lie?

I ask you refrain from throwing scripture at this thread because even if you tell me the Bible says God cannot lie; I know it says this, and this response is valid only if you first accept the premise that the Bible is true/ and inspired by a God that didn't lie when he 'inspired' that bit.

To put it simply, what makes lying bad?

The only contexts in which I can see lying as "good" is when it's the least-bad option. An imperfect means to an end that tends to break down trust and relationships. God can do better than that, even if sometimes I can't.

 

[Grega]

The only contexts in which I can see lying as "good" is when it's the least-bad option. An imperfect means to an end that tends to break down trust and relationships. God can do better than that, even if sometimes I can't.

But is it always an 'imperfect' means to an end? why is it that in all cases, the greatest good outcome is that (somehow) the person who receives information should receive the correct information? (regardless of what they would do with it)

I can only imagine that answering these questions seems simple because you take it as a fundamental truth that lying is bad, and this is probably based upon your faith in God and the Bible.

 

[ebia]

But is it always an 'imperfect' means to an end? why is it that in all cases, the greatest good outcome is that (somehow) the person who receives information should receive the correct information? (regardless of what they would do with it)

I

I can't prove it, but it seems to me that lying always tends to undermine relationships. Given that God's primary purpose in creation is to restore relationships...

can only imagine that answering these questions seems simple because you take it as a fundamental truth that lying is bad, and this is probably based upon your faith in God and the Bible.

I didn't say it was simple, but I do think it's based in my understanding of relationships as much as in any foundational assumptions about lying or about the bible. And although I don't see anything in the bible or elsewhere that leads me to conclude that God lies, I do note that there are a couple of instances where he appears to condone it in his people under extreme circumstances (eg the Israelite midwives in Egypt).

 

[Grega]

I can't prove it, but it seems to me that lying always tends to undermine relationships. Given that God's primary purpose in creation is to restore relationships...

Lying always tends to undermine relationships?
Allow me to challenge this...so when say, a four year old child shows you the mess he/she has made with some crayons and asks you what you think of it; telling that child it is really good would undermine that relationship??? Is it better in this case to make the child aware (in some way) that from an aesthetics point of view you find their efforts to be somewhat displeasing on the eye?

 

[ebia]

Lying always tends to undermine relationships?
Allow me to challenge this...so when say, a four year old child shows you the mess he/she has made with some crayons and asks you what you think of it; telling that child it is really good would undermine that relationship??? Is it better in this case to make the child aware (in some way) that from an aesthetics point of view you find their efforts to be somewhat displeasing on the eye?

I can praise what is good about it without lying. Ultimately false praise is counter productive - the person (even children) work out what's going on after a while and discount the value of false praise.

 

[Grega]

I can praise what is good about it without lying. Ultimately false praise is counter productive - the person (even children) work out what's going on after a while and discount the value of false praise.

If you maintain such lies up to a point where they gain the maturity to see that you are lying then yes, perhaps you'd have a point. But I am talking about a single lie here that may perhaps be performed a small number of times and that motivates this young child who's current proficiency with crayons is negligibly small, to blissfully and for a short time ignorantly carry on to perhaps become masterful or sufficiently skilled in their later years.