razzelflabben
Contributor
What is a parable? Isn't it a fictitious story for the purpose of teaching a lesson? By some definitions for lie wouldn't it be considered a lie? Definition is important it would seem to me.
Upvote
0
I'm aware of what the scripture said, so there is no higher understanding here, because I'm also aware of his purpose for telling them she is is sister...it was to deceive them into believing it was not his wife.
I show my disagreement here because I'm concerned about people taking from this, as long as we just deceive it's ok, it's not a lie, and even though I think in some cases God can handle some of both, not a good idea to take from this incident or this thread, that deception is ok willy nilly.
Is there ever a time that being dishonest is actually ok to God?
I ask because a few times in scripture we see very godly men being deceitful and it not being recorded as wrong. In fact a couple times God seems to bless them in spite of it.
Abraham when he went before Pharoah and Abimelek. Isaac before Abimelek. Jacob with his brother Esau, several times. Joseph when he acted as if he didn't know his brothers, gave them back their silver and said he hadn't, then set up Benjamin with the Silver Cup. David acting mentally ill in front of Achish
What about making silly noises then blaming them on a friend or family member?
Or for a more serious matter, hiding someone to save their life? Or lying so you don't hurt someone's feelings?
So is there ever a time that being dishonest is ok?
IOW, when is a lie not sin?
But the Pharoah has free will and he chose a different course of action for history. So no lying actually took place by God.
Yet, we know Jesus did not lie because Scripture says it is impossible for God to lie.
Let me ask you using the example I have brought up many times. Germans in WWII that hid Jews and then lied to the Nazis to save their lives, did their lie bring anger to God?
Do you really think I am trying to justify evil?
Being "drunk" is not an action. It is the result of an action.
It is awkward posting in this thread, since others are distorting so much , blatantly, about God's Word and the Gospel.It's nice to see when the spirit of the law get enforced instead of loophole or legal spin .. Like what was Corban ? Never heard it preached on
Well, not to derail the topic of this thread here, but if I were to answer the question, "Are we currently bound to the Law of Moses?"
I would say the following:
While we as believers today are not under the Old Covenant and it's many laws, especially the ceremonial laws, and judicial laws (Because we are New Covenant believers), we have to understand that there are "Eternal Moral Laws" that God has given to man since the beginning. Granted, not all moral law is eternal. For example: One issue of morality that appears to have changed (with the arrival of the written law of Moses) is the sleeping with close of kin. But I believe this has to do with the fact that sin has effected man's genetics whereby man's body could no longer handle inbreeding - which can be seen by the fact that men no longer lived hundreds of years like he used to.
"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully." (1 Timothy 1:8).
While I believe a believer today should primarily look to the commands in the New Testament to obey God, there are certain "Eternal Moral Laws or Commands" that are not as clearly described for us in the New Testament as they are in the Old Testament. For example: It is still immoral to contact the dead, engage in inappropriate behavior with animals, make a graven image and bow down to it, etc. (As the Old Testament says).
...
That was the weakest possible passage of scripture to make a point about free will. It specifically says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart to prevent him from letting the people go. Ergo, not only did God tell Moses to state his intentions, but he actively prevented those intentions from being carried out. Frankly, I don't think that qualifies as a lie, because the statement was a conditional proposition dependent upon Pharaoh letting them go, which he didn't.
From the beginning passages of Genesis, I get the impression that reality is shaped by God's words. The impossibility of the lie comes from the fact that God saying it makes it become true.
That's an extreme example, and it was brought up many times in this thread, both before and after this post. It's a good question, but it lacks nuance.
I would wonder if all information is to be available to all people. If I ask you a direct question to a sticky subject, knowing that you will not lie, then simply remaining mute will answer my question sufficiently. The answer is whichever of the options you would not want to give (binary questions work marvelously). If you give an indirect answer, then it is the same as being mute. If you give a direct answer, then you are telling the truth. I know, because I once took advantage of someone whom I knew would never lie to me. I realized, afterward, that I had been taking advantage of a person's honesty, and I swore I'd never do that again. However, at the time, I was able to discover anything I wanted, simply by being persistent, forward and binary.
The question I would ask, rather than the one about hiding Jews from Nazis, is simply whether I'm obligated to reveal everything about myself to anyone who asks pertinaciously, whether I want to or not, because that's what will ultimately happen if I never lie or deceive. It's not necessarily a matter so extreme as life or death, or even protecting right over wrong.
I can't say it's never crossed my mind. You do have a habit of equivocating, as in the latter part of this same post:
This was in response to someone who mentioned getting drunk, which is definitely an action. You changed getting into being, and then you argued against what he did not say. Then, he let you get away with that clever little twist.
It wouldn't be so bad, but that's no exception to your over-all debating habits. It's the "Did God really say..." argument, and it seems to be your modus operandi.
Absolutely, yes.For example, do you think Leviticus 18:19 should be kept?
I think you took a wrong turn and you are in the wrong thread.
This thread is not about Calvinism.
Oh, and Pharoah hardened his heart first - BTW (By the way)
(See Exodus 7:13, Exodus 7:22; Exodus 8:19).
Scripture says it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18).
So it looks like you have a contradiction in the Bible.
...
This was in response to someone who mentioned getting drunk, which is definitely an action. You changed getting into being, and then you argued against what he did not say. Then, he let you get away with that clever little twist.
For a moral law to be "eternal", means it is the same always, it cannot fluctuate. Context (such a shift in genetic stability) cannot change this.
You said:Plus, you never answered my question on how an increased risk for genetic disorder makes a pregnancy a sin. Do you apply this consistently to all people who have this increased risk - not just close kin?
You said:Paul, and the Jews, dealt with the law as a unity. This is why we see "law" and not "laws". His response to the law is not to various parts of it, however you wish to divide it, but to the whole law. It is also in this sense the Christians are not under the law - the whole law.
You said:Trying to separate the law into cultic, moral, civil, or ceremonial categories is impossible. Many of the so-called-ceremonial laws have a moral dimension that cannot be jettisoned.
You said:How do you objectively determine which to keep and which to ditch? For example, do you think Leviticus 18:19 should be kept?
You said:Romans 7:6
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
The entire Mosaic Law comes to fulfillment in Christ, and this fulfillment means that this law is no longer a direct source of, or judge of, the conduct of God's people. Christian behavior is now guided directly by the "Law of Christ." This new "law" does not consist of legal prescriptions and ordinances, but of the teaching and example of Jesus and the apostles, the central demand of love, and the guiding influence of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
You said:This means murder is a sin, but not because it was in the Law of Moses.
This means sorcery is a sin, but not because it was in the Law of Moses.
This means idolatry is a sin, but not because it was in the Law of Moses.
But because they violate the Law of Christ.
That is why I said there are "Eternal Moral Laws" and "Moral Laws" that are not eternal.
Sleeping with kin is a "Temporal Moral Law" because at one time it was acceptable to sleep with kin so as to populate the entire Earth. It is a moral law because one is putting at risk another life (a newborn) by disobeying this command.
God says in His Word that it is sin. So that is all the proof we need it is wrong. If we see bad things result of disobeying this command, such as another potentially perishing or suffering, we are breaking the 2nd command to love our neighbor (i.e. Hence, it is a moral law).
This is because one is not trained to recongize the different aspects or differences within the Law. Some do not really care about God's laws or some have simply not done their homework on it. A great book you should check out is "From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law."
From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law: Philip S. Ross: 9781845506018: Amazon.com: Books
The most extreme form of punishment for this is being cut off from among the people. Death was not the form of punishment for disobeying this. But there are health risks to consider. There are potential risks of yeast, urinary, and even an HIV infections as the result of doing this. I do not see this as a sin unto death (if you are not aware of the dangers of this), but I do see it as if you love your partner, you would not want to do any harm towards them in any way over your own pleasure). So I would say that this law still applies because it is moral. It is in the best interest of loving your wife by obeyng this because there are no risks of infection for her.
There is no denying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit guide us believers into all truth in regards to His good will and ways. There is also no denying that the New Testament is the main document for obedience to God's commands for believers today. But certain laws of the Old still hold true under the New that are not so clearly expressed in the New Testament (as I have shown previously).
Most Moral Laws (and not all of them) are generally understood as being wrong by nature.
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves." (Romans 2:14).
Most of the world as a whole today generally accept that murder, theft, lying, rape, and child abuse are wrong. In other words, a moral law is any law of love that people would do by nature without God having to specifically tell them.
A person is not going to automatically obey the 7th Day Sabbath Command without God telling Him in His Word to do that.
I do not believe there are temporal moral laws. Morality is absolute.
You said:Is it immoral to purposely get pregnant if you know your child will be at an elevated risk for certain genetic disorders? Then why come up with some elaborate reason, like genetic stability? Seems like you are trying to find a moral component to it since the text doesn't clearly list any.
You said:I care and I have dedicated a large part of my life to serious and sincere study. I'll check out the book. Here is my book recommendation: Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology): Brian S. Rosner: 9780830826322: Amazon.com: Books
You said:There is a potential risk for all those things while she is off her period. Also, many woman desire it during this time due to a fluctuation of specific hormones. But besides all that, who says putting yourself in potential risk is sin? Do you not drive a car? I'm sure you try to mitigate risk by wearing a seat belt, but the risk of a serious crash is still possible. Perhaps wearing a condom during those times of the month can be their "seat belt".
You said:Those certain laws hold true, not because they were part of the Mosaic Law, but because they were true even BEFORE the Mosaic Law.
I don't agree with that definition. People sin by their very nature. Nature is a bad plumb line to balance morality on.
Well, the next of kin law is a moral law that only applied at the writing of the time of Moses and after. At one time, it was not applicable. Again, how did Adam populate the Earth? Did he encounter other humans from a space ship on another world? Adam's family had to intermarry in order for them to be fruitful and to multiply (and thereby populate the Earth). In fact, speaking of the command to: "Be fruitful and to multiply", I would say that this was a moral law in regards to loving God in a small way back in the Old Testament. God wanted to see His creation Earth filled with mankind. The obedience to this command was fulfilled. Paul says he wishes that believers abide as he does (i.e. not to marry). So the "Be frutiful and to multiply" command is no more. It was for that old world back then. It was a "Temporary Moral Law" that applied to a specific people group.
Because it is true. Men lived hundreds of years until the time of the giving of the Law of Moses (Which just so happens by coincidence is when we receive the Law or Command on not sleeping with one's kin).
I will consider it. Thank you. I will read more reviews about it.