Cactus Game Design Message Boards

God killed Sapphira for speaking a specific untruth, but he killed Ananias just for bringing in the money.

This is actually a good example of how the Bible seems to take a more narrow definition of lying.  Ananias did something that caused people to think something that was untrue (that he donated all the money from his sale to the Lord).  However, he didn't actually come out and "say" anything that wasn't true.  Therefore, Peter says that Ananias did NOT lie to the men.  Unfortunately, Ananias must have been trying to fool God because Peter said that he WAS lying to God.  And that is why he was killed.

Not to mention that there isn't even a direct command not to lie. Just not to bear false witness.

Actually, there were several verses listed earlier in this discussion.  I'll quote them below.  I particularly point to the one in Proverbs 6 where God lists a lying tongue separate from a false witness, which directly contradicts your statement.

Prov 19:5
5 ...he who tells lies will not escape.

Rev 21:8
8 "But for...all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Prov 6:16-19
16 There are six things which the LORD hates...a lying tongue, And...A false witness who utters lies...

This is actually a good example of how the Bible seems to take a more narrow definition of lying.

You contradict yourself greatly here.

Ananias did something that caused people to think something that was untrue.

Which you say is not a breaking of God's commandment.

However, he didn't actually come out and "say" anything that wasn't true.  Therefore, Peter says that Ananias did NOT lie to the men.  Unfortunately, Ananias must have been trying to fool God because Peter said that he WAS lying to God.

Where in the "plain text reading" of the Commandments does it say that lying is only lying to men, but lying to God does not break this commandment, but God will punish both equally?  This is no more "plain" to me than saying it's only a lie if you speak a deliberate untruth, but it's okay to tell half-truths or act deceptively without speaking.

On top of which, I see zero response to the cognitive dissonance this generates with Jesus' taught philosophies.

I particularly point to the one in Proverbs 6 where God lists a lying tongue separate from a false witness, which directly contradicts your statement.

The strange thing about your bringing this up is that it actually contradicts YOUR position that false witness is narrowly defined as spoken, deliberate falsehoods.  You say that false witness MUST be that, and ONLY that, and then say here that they are distinctly different.

I hope they have a good attorney on judgement day.

Don't need a good attorney, just a good wittness  .

I think we need to agree what each term means before we can truly begin.  There seems to be too much confusion regarding the two terms

False Witness - Intentionally lying or leaving out information in a situation where you are called to render testimony for or against an individual

This one is always intentional, always harmful and always evil

Lying -  any dishonest act or ommission that gives a false impression about a situation

This one can be unintentional, not always harmful and can be eitheir good or bad depending upon the situation.

How do these work?

Actually, there I would probably tell them that if she is old enough, she can speak for herself.  If she is not old enough, then they would probably be after me (since I would have been there too if I am even in a position to testify against her)

But all that being said, being called to witness in a situation like that is also being called to witness about our beliefs in God.  If I believe I cannot give a false witness (either by commission or omission) then I would indeed tell them that I was there and that my daughter (if she could not testify for herself) was there because I am testifyinig about my relationship with God.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 13, 2009, 09:54:13 AM

Quote from: crustpope on October 12, 2009, 03:12:07 PM

You know, why dont you give out a fake one you can remember like 1-1-11 or 2-2-22  or something like that. for you it could be 7-7-77 since 7 was your jersey number.

This discussion has been done before, but I continue to point out that it is not good to lie about information like this.  Take your choice between giving your real birthday and being able to forget your password, or don't give your birthday and don't forget you password.  But don't lie about something just so that you can access a yahoo account for a pretend football league.  Your integrity should be worth more than that.

I choose not to give real information about myself over the internet.  Between hackers and identity thieves, I choose to keep as little of my information on the "grid" as possible.  All these accounts want your personal info...I refuse to give it, but the boxes still have to be filled out.  I don't see it as an integrity issue trying to keep my identity as safe as possible.

Life lock

I think you were defining "false witness" as just saying something that was not true, and you were defining "lying" to include that but also to include doing or saying something that leads someone to a false conclusion.

I define them all synonymously, just as Jesus defines hate as murder and lust as adultery.  I'm not even taking the definitions nearly as far as He to accomplish this.  I'm just looking at sin - and conversely, righteousness - as a heart condition.

I was defining "false witness" to be specifically lying in court or the principal's office or a similar situation where you are called as a witness to something.  I was defining "lying" to be saying something that was not true.

This to me is a distinction without a difference, because you define them similarly, as the specific speaking of a deliberate falsehood.  Defining it so narrowly contradicts the idea that somehow Ananias was killed for dishonesty despite being technically truthful, and it flies in the face of your comprehensive and absolute reading of the commandment not to kill.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on October 20, 2009, 05:25:41 PM

I've already responded to those, on this thread and the last time we had this discussion. I remain thoroughly unconvinced that those verses constitute a command never to lie.

Here

Leviticus 19:11 "You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another.

Naturally, I wouldn't lie to a fellow confessor. Anything else?

Schaef, you seem to be saying that "false witness" and "lying" are synonymous.

uummmm.... yeah.  In what way are they not?  You said that false witness was telling a lie about something you saw, and that lying was telling a lie about... I'm cloudy on this, on something that you may or may not have direct knowledge of, or what?  I said before that they both sounded to me like they meant to you saying something you know is false, and got no additional clarity on how you these two definitions differ in your mind.

So then are you saying that "do not bear false witness" doesn't always mean "do not bear false witness"?  Are you really saying that one of the 10 commandments is sometimes wrong?

Please do not distort my point into saying that God is or can be wrong.  That is a very different thing from saying they are not comprehensive and absolute.  I used murder as an example because not all killing is murder; this is a case I can make both legally and biblically, and point to places where God ordered the death of people, even civilians.  It is my recollection that, in past discussions on this topic, you made no distinctions about any form of killing apart from murder, not even in the defense of self or others.

So aside from being confused about how your stance on killing can be strict and absolute but your stance on lying can be narrow and hair-splitting - to the point where you can be openly dishonest to another person and not count since you didn't actually SAY something that is technically untrue - I am also confused as to how to reconcile this with Jesus' words regarding the commandments and righteous living, and the times that people were asked - both directly and indirectly - to take action in conflict with these commandments for the betterment of God's people.

In a worldview where distinctions are made and the law is something that establishes the state of the heart - as Paul describes in Romans - all of these things make good clean sense.  In a worldview where they are absolute but defined to different degrees and conflict with God's own actions, His commands to His people, and His words on earth as Jesus, I cannot find the sense so cleanly.

Quote

Polarius, you seem to be saying that lying to Christians is wrong, but lying to non-Christians is OK.  Am I really reading that right?

Back to the Nazi trying to find the Jews in your house then.  If the Nazi said he was a Christian, would you tell him if the Jews were in there or not? 
Absolutely. The right hand can't  lie to the left and expect the body to function, but one body can lie to a different, hostile body to preserve its well being.

There are only two cities, and their inhabitants are enemies of one another. Lying to the enemy for the benefit of the Kingdom is a good thing.

Back to the Nazi trying to find the Jews in your house then.  If the Nazi said he was a Christian, would you tell him if the Jews were in there or not?  Another example.  You and another Christian are talking.  The Christian has just asked if you could go to his house on a certain date.  You just don't want to go but he seems really excited about you coming and you had promised him before this.  Would you lie and say you had other arrangements?And just because we are enemies with the world doesn't mean we should break our own commandments.  Do you believe the ten commandments only apply to Jews?

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 21, 2009, 04:52:00 PM

Schaef, you seem to be saying that "false witness" and "lying" are synonymous.

uummmm.... yeah.  In what way are they not?

I would say that "false witness" is similar to what Matt said, "Intentionally lying in a situation where you are called to render testimony for or against an individual".  So if someone asks me whether Schaef has any children, and I say "no", then that would be false witness.  I would say lying is "saying something that isn't true".  So if a girl asks me if I like her short haircut better than her previous long haircut, and I say "yes", then that would be a lie.  But it would not be "false witness".  I am only stating my opinion or personal feeling, not giving testimony about someone else.  So in my mind, "false witness" is a specific type of "lying", but not all lies would specifically be "false witness".  Does that make things more clear?

I used murder as an example

I'm fine talking about this in a separate thread, but I don't want to confuse this one by talking about 2 controversial topics.

your stance on lying can be narrow and hair-splitting

I don't think it's hair splitting to simply define lying as saying something that is not true.  That seems pretty basic to me.

False Witness - Intentionally lying or leaving out information in a situation where you are called to render testimony for or against an individual

This one is always intentional, always harmful and always evil

I would probably choose to not say anything and just simply rot in jail for contempt of court.

This is exactly what I was saying earlier though.  You are contradicting your own definition for false witness.  You originally said that bearing "false witness" was always wrong.  And you defined it as saying anything untrue, or even leaving out information you were called to give.  Yet now you say that you would omit information about you daughter and the library because you personally decided it was an unjust law.  This is where the moral relativity is creeping into even your own thinking.  Do you not see it?

answer me this:  Is your daughter lying when she says her sister fell down the stairs (when in reality she PUSHED her sister down the stairs?)

I would say that she technically is not lying.  I can also tell you from experience that I would ask more specific questions as I investigated the situation so that she would be forced to either tell me the truth, or a lie.  I would also cross-check her story with her sisters, take into account both of their historical behavior patterns, and any other evidence from the stairs that could be relevant.  Then I would distribute punishment as warranted.

Why is Annanias punished for leaving out the part of the money that they kept back?

Peter says that Annanias wrongdoing was "lying to God".  The story doesn't specifically tell us how he actually did that.  Perhaps, he said a prayer that included something like "Holy Father, I give you this day all the money from the sale of my field."  I don't really know.  But whatever he said to God wasn't true, and God wasn't happy about it.

Back to the Nazi trying to find the Jews in your house then.  If the Nazi said he was a Christian, would you tell him if the Jews were in there or not?

No. I would not believe him to be a true confessor if he were working for the SS to capture God's children.

You and another Christian are talking.  The Christian has just asked if you could go to his house on a certain date.  You just don't want to go but he seems really excited about you coming and you had promised him before this.  Would you lie and say you had other arrangements?

That's immoral even by much looser standards than I employ. I've said over and over again that lying for personal gain is never ok.

And just because we are enemies with the world doesn't mean we should break our own commandments.  Do you believe the ten commandments only apply to Jews?

This is non-sequitur. The ten commandments say nothing about lying in general. I've already explained how lying is not always breaking with God's will, and is sometimes a virtue. Bringing this point up serves no purpose.