When is lying not sinful?

Jason0047 said:

And 1 John 2:4 says,
"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."


...

Click to expand...

Right..

And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

If you lie to save a life, it is not sin. It is Loving your neighbor.

I apologize to the readers, this is not a debate forum. We are beginning to debate.

Dan61861 said:

Right..

And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

Click to expand...

But wait. I thought you were not under any law salvation wise.
Oh, and yes. I believe these things. But if you believe these things then you would uphold God's moral law as a part of loving your neighbor (See Romans 13:8-10). The ends do not justify the means.

You said:

And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

Click to expand...

But you are implying that Jesus and even we can break God's laws and yet not be condemned.


....

Dan61861 said:

If you lie to save a life, it is not sin. It is Loving your neighbor.

Click to expand...

If you murder to save a life, it is not sin, but it is loving?
If you rape to save a life, it is not sin, but it is loving?
If you beat a child to save a life, it is not sin, but it is loving?
If you get drunk and then drive to save a life, it is not sin, but it is loving?

The list of evil you can do to justify the righteous goal or ends has many possibilities.
Some of the best written villians in movies are those who think the ends justifies the means.


....

Dan61861 said:

I apologize to the readers, this is not a debate forum. We are beginning to debate.

Click to expand...

May the Lord God's love shine upon you.


...

When is lying not sinful?

I would say now that it is always sinful!

Tactics of deception during war time were not the same as lying with one's own words.



...

Jason0047 said:

When is lying not sinful?

I would say now that it is always sinful!

Tactics of deception during war time were not the same as lying with one's own words.



...

Click to expand...

Always...except...

Jason0047 said:

I understand, but truth should not be our enemy.
Certain truths within these laws do exist whether we recognize them or not.



That is not the case. It was considered ... wickedness.

"Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness" (Leviticus 18:17).

For you can actually defile yourself with these things.

"Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:" (Leviticus 18:20).

In fact, I believe certain (next of kin laws and not all of them) like sleeping with one's mother was always forbidden. How so?

For one, our nature built within us tell us this is wrong. Two, we see that this is what wrongfully happened between Noah's wife and his son, Ham. For it is why Noah cursed the offspring of Ham (i.e. his son, Canaan). For the words "uncover the nakedness of a particular person" was in reference to their spouse.

Leviticus 18:7 says,
"The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness."

So we have:

Thy father's wife = thy father's nakedness.

So when Genesis 9:22 says,
"And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, "

The nakedness of his father (Noah) was Noah's wife.
It is talking about Noah's wife.
This is done for the obvious reason so as not to humilate her within the Scriptures.

Anyways, in light of this, I now need to say that some of God's laws on "not sleeping with kin" are "Eternal Moral Laws." while others were temporal (and came about during the time of Moses).



I see it as a means of God desiring to fill the Earth.

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." (Genesis 9:1).

In fact, when they didn't do that, and they just stayed in one place, God confounded their language and scattered them abroad.

"....the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.." (Genesis 11:9).

God wanted to populate the planet Earth with man and for him to have dominion over it.

For it was a command given to Adam and Eve.

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28).

In other words, God naturally rules;
And man was created in God's image.
So it has to do with God wanting man to have rule over the Earth.



Yet, families existed since after Adam, though.
And geneologies were kept even back then.
Abraham before the Law was promised the inheritance of the Promised Land;
Abraham was also promised that his descendants would be as the stars of the sky.


...

Click to expand...

A couple things . God did not curse Canaan , Noah did .. Hams brothers backed in to cover their father, you want me to assume it was their mother ? God created mankind on the 6th day to subdue the Earth . Adam was placed in a garden with the presence and law of God ''thou shalt not''

Jason0047 said:

All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire (Revelation 21:8).

Click to expand...

Liars are those who practice lying ... not those who find occasion to tell a needful lie.

Jason0047 said:

May the Lord God's love shine upon you.


...

Click to expand...

Thank you, may the Lord's love be upon you

In Christ
Daniel

Jason0047 said:

And in Exodus, it does not specifically say the Hebrew mid wives lied to protect the lives of any babies, either.

Click to expand...

What it says is that the midwives said that the Hebrew women, effectively, had their babies before they could get to them ... which was an untruth.

Whether their good intention ... keeps the untruth from being a lie is the question, I think ...

A_Thinker said:

Liars are those who practice lying ... not those who find occasion to tell a needful lie.

Click to expand...

No.

How many times do you need to murder before you are called a murderer?

It only takes one time.


...

4x4toy said:

A couple things . God did not curse Canaan , Noah did .. Hams brothers backed in to cover their father, you want me to assume it was their mother ? God created mankind on the 6th day to subdue the Earth . Adam was placed in a garden with the presence and law of God ''thou shalt not''

Click to expand...

I do believe I said Noah was the one who cursed Canaan. But if he did so it was more than likely in favor with God because we see the Canaanite nation wiped out later.

Anyways,

I provided more of an explanation on this here:

So What Really Happened in Noah's Tent After the Flood?


...

Broaden the question to moral dilemmas, whenever the purposes of multiple commands of God are at cross purposes.
There are six general approaches to moral dilemmas. Three are clearly unbiblical:
Antinomianism: there is no right or wrong. Wrong!
Generalism or Utilitarianism: concepts of right and wrong are vague, and laws exist simply to serve practical purposes, so the end justifies the means. The preferred system of morality, then, is one that focuses only on results and consequences, not on right and wrong per se. Wrong.
Situationalism: what’s right isn’t always right; what’s wrong isn’t always wrong. We might agree in part, but it leads to the conclusion that society or the individual is the final judge. The concepts of morality are both vague and ever-changing. It’s a post-modern denial of anything true or permanent (even though this approach to morality has been evoked since the earliest of times). Wrong.

The three systems that might be biblical:
Absolutism: What God commands is always the absolute and only law. It is never right to do something God says not to do. Absolutism doesn’t do shades of grey, so it simply ignores moral conflicts in which it may seem that obeying one law would cause you to break a different law.
Conflicted Absolutism: The same system, but it handles moral conflict by saying that when there is no right choice, you are still sinning by making any choice that disobeys God. So choose the lesser of two evils and ask God to forgive you. It implies that there are times when we must sin.
Graded Absolutism: Instead of choosing the lesser of two evils, you choose the higher of two laws, and if you are giving the greatest obedience to the greatest law that you can, then it is no sin to temporarily set aside a lower law. This would then justify the lie of Rahab, for instance, because she was acting both in love for the spies and in faithful service to the one true God when she set aside her responsibility to the truth in favor of her greater responsibility to save lives. It would not justify Abraham lying just to avoid potential conflict with Egyptians attracted to Sarah.
There may be differences of opinion either about the best choice in specific moral conflicts or how exactly to grade God’s laws, but that’s where conscience comes in. Our personal responsibility to make the best choice where choices are not clear is why we are urged to follow our conscience. Don’t choose the lesser of two evils and be satisfied with sinning just a little bit. Choose the greater of two responsibilities and fulfill it to the glory of God and in love and service to others to the best of your ability.
Graded absolutism would conclude that lies and deception are justified in cases of moral conflict. It might also suggest that deception is okay when it’s not precisely a moral conflict, but whenever a lie serves a higher, loving and righteous purpose with no sinful intent (jokes, social niceties, teaching or testing someone, withholding truth) when the righteous intent outweighs the untruthful content. But if you’re not careful that could lead you down the road toward utilitarianism or situationalism.

Jason0047 said:

I do believe I said Noah was the one who cursed Canaan. But if he did so it was more than likely in favor with God because we see the Canaanite nation wiped out later.

Anyways,

I provided more of an explanation on this here:

So What Really Happened in Noah's Tent After the Flood?


...

Click to expand...

I agree but my point was can Noahs curse be effective without Gods sanction, just curious

Tohu va bohu said:

Graded Absolutism: Instead of choosing the lesser of two evils, you choose the higher of two laws, and if you are giving the greatest obedience to the greatest law that you can, then it is no sin to temporarily set aside a lower law. This would then justify the lie of Rahab, for instance, because she was acting both in love for the spies and in faithful service to the one true God when she set aside her responsibility to the truth in favor of her greater responsibility to save lives. It would not justify Abraham lying just to avoid potential conflict with Egyptians attracted to Sarah.

Click to expand...

I agree that graded absolutism is a valid position, but it can only validate the three offenses that I named earlier, namely:

• Assault/homicide/suicide (defending others/self-sacrifice),
• Theft/sabotage (defunding a bona fide enemy), and
• Lying/deception (misdirecting a bona fide enemy)

I can think of no scenario that could ever validate sexual sin or blasphemy, for example.

Nor can I.

Dan61861 said:

If you lie to save a life, it is not sin. It is Loving your neighbor.

Click to expand...

So God was in error when He said that the Law is holy?

Can't be both, depending on your situation.

ToBeLoved said:

So God was in error when He said that the Law is holy?

Can't be both, depending on your situation.

Click to expand...

The Bible validates the Bible. Since God put His blessing on some lies under certain circumstances, we have to conclude that "Thou shall not bear false witness" does not apply to all incidents of subterfuge any more than "Thou shall not murder" applies to all incidents of homicide. You are giving that commandment greater breadth than what is supported in the rest of the Bible.