Just remember, Jesus came to fulfill, not abolish.

Yes, and Jesus said that loving God and loving our neighbor fulfills the law.

Here's something more to wrestle through: Jesus said to let our yes be yes, and our no be no. Anything more than that is of the devil. Therefore, if we say things which are sidestepping the issue or lie, is that of the devil?

So then what do you make of 1st Samuel 16, when God told Samuel to intentionally mislead someone i.e. lie, according to many definitions?

I would say perhaps our definitions need changed. However, I would add that Samuel didn't lie. He did that which he said, even if that was not his entire reason. I assume that, if Saul had pressed him, Samuel would have provided him with the full truth. However, God worked it out that it was not necessary. Therefore, according to this, we could use a small sleight of hand, but not lie outright. I would also note that this took place before Jesus commanded our yes to be yes and our no to be no. At this point, lies were not specifically forbidden, only lies while under oath were forbidden (which was false witness). Now Christians should be known so much for their honesty that it is not required for others to even ask if what we say is true, they just take our word for it.

So then, what is your take on Corrie Ten Boom?

I have no right to judge her. Paul says in Romans 14 that each of us should stand to our own convictions and allow others to stand to theirs. Personally, I may view what she did as wrong, which makes it wrong for me to do. If she viewed it as right, then it would be wrong for her to do otherwise. Just as you view it right to kill and I view it wrong to do so. For you to do otherwise (without changing your convictions) would be wrong, and for me to as you do (without changing my convictions) would be wrong as well.

I'm okay with that answer. I disagree with your stance, but that is an answer I can respect.

The only problem is, you're assuming you saved your sister. You can't know for sure that he would have killed her, unless of course he said he was. That being said, I get what you're saying and it's best not to wait around for the consequences.

So there's an interesting problem that's just sprung into my mind. Taking the above example, let's say you chose not to shoot the guy, because you didn't have evidence beyond a doubt that he would kill your sister, and therefore you thought it would be murder to kill him. But if he did kill your sister, are you in the wrong because you could have stopped him and didn't? I'm not asking because I think I have the answer.

What would you guys say?

What, then, is your take on the first couple chapters of Hosea, where God directed Hosea to marry a prostitute?

*smiles * I'm trained in defensive shooting. Part of that is knowing how to deal with hostage situations. If someone takes a hostage, there are things you say, and things you read, to be able to know what to do next. If he's willing to take her life, I have no qualms taking his to defend her. She's my sister. My God given role is to protect her life.

I'm not Neil, but I can give you my own answer: God's command to marry her is not wrong. Hosea is not committing any sin by marrying her, he is rather showing God's love for Israel (which is explained by the rest of the book).

Yeah. God didn't tell him to commit adultery with her but to marry her. And I don't believe there are any commands in the Bible against marrying a prostitute. It generally wouldn't be wise, but in this situation, I think El Hobre de Paz described my view perfectly about why God told him to marry her.

To echo what has been said above, I don't really understand how Hosea would have been sinning to marry a prostitute. It was neither adultery nor any other vice.

I'll have to look closer. I thought there was something wrong with that.

Actually, marriage is used throughout the Bible to illustrate God's relationship with His people. We are all idolaters, and therefore adulterous in our relationship with God, yet he forgives us, absolves are sins, and will ultimately wed us at the Wedding Feast.

So unless there is a problem with God marrying us, there is no problem with Hosea marrying a prostitute. In fact, this issue of Israel's relationship with God is exactly what that passage of scripture is about.

You say that at this point, it had not been expressly forbidden to lie as of yet. What, then, do you make of the ninth commandment?

The ninth commandment is 'Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.' Bearing witness would be done most commonly in court (though not always) and therefore, you would be under oath to tell the truth. Also, it explicitly states the lie being against your neighbor, which I assume would mean that as long as it wasn't hurting anyone, you could lie.
In the New Testament, we are called not only to not lie when it hurts others, but to be so well known for our honesty that people would be aghast to think we would lie in the first place. It's hard teaching, but I would assume that means outright lies ("There are no Jews in my house" even if there are) would be disobeying the heart of Jesus' command.
Still, as stated before, I have no right to say whether it was right or wrong, only what my convictions tell me and what the Bible says. If people read that and have different convictions, then they should follow them.

There arises the question of greater evil again. Do you consider Corrie Ten Boom to be wrong for lying to protect the lives of dozens of Jews? I know that unless I had to deny my faith or my God, I would lie to save even one life in a heartbeat.

So if a criminal broke into your home to hide while the police were looking for him, and the police entered your house and asked if the criminal was there, would you lie to save his life? (assuming the justice system would kill him for his criminal act)

He is a criminal doing the wrong thing. Corrie was saving lives of innocent people.

That's true, she was (innocent being a relative term). I was not disagreeing with that, I was just asking Short how far that dishonesty would go. She said she wouldn't hesitate to save a life, so I presented a scenario and asked her if she would still carry that principle in that scenario.

Ah, I see what you meant, now. I think she meant in regards to Corrie's situation. She wouldn't hesitate to save a life by lying, as Corrie did.

We actually have a whole thread on here dedicated to this topic.

Yes. Of course I would turn in someone hiding from the law. But if there was mass genocide and all that going on like with the Jews in Corrie's time, I would hide them. I would lie. I wouldn't turn them in and therefore help Hitler.

But are the only two options really lying or turning them in? When Jesus was confronted by the Jewish Council he did not lie or submit, he, rather, was silent. Would that not be another option which would (hopefully) reach the same result?
Again, I'm not trying to say that lying would be inherently wrong, I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint.

If the Gestapo came knocking on your door and there was a Jew in your home, and they asked whether you were hiding any Jews, and you remained silent and didn't say anything, would that really deter them from tearing your house apart? I know I'm good at telling when people are hiding something from me and that's one of the signs. Remaining silent wouldn't work. Anyway... I don't know what nationality you are, but say you're Romanian (because Romanians are cool-I met one the other day and he had an epic accent) and you live in England. If the... *picks another random nationality* Scottish were invading England (work with me here), killing all the Romanians, and you hid from them in your English friend's house, what good would it do if your friend said "Oh, yes, I'm hiding a Romanian!"

If you're going to go as far as you have been with the lying and deceit, what do you think about hiding in the first place? Hiding is pretending you're not there, tricking people. Wouldn't that be classified as deceit?

I think the Gestapo would tear the house apart, no matter what I said. They weren't known for being very trusting.

Again, I ask you, are there only two choices? Is there truly only the option of open betrayal or lying? Silence is one (however effective or not effective it is). And if my friend did say such, then I would gladly die at the hands of the Scots, knowing that my death would be a witness to others of the change Christ brought about in my life.
Perhaps, I would be as Origen (I think it was him) who was only held back from openly going to his death by his mother.

What is the difference, then, between deceit and lying?

According to the dictionary, deceit is misrepresenting or hiding the truth. Lying is saying something false. Therefore, I suppose, (according to the dictionary) withholding the truth is a form of deceit.
Personally, however, I'd say deceit and lying are both question to be answered by every person. I don't want to say you can only live according to my way, I'm asking that you live according to Jesus' way. I'm not trying to change Shorty's mind, I'm just asking of there is any other way to do things, and if that is a better way. For Shorty lying may be okay and even Godly, for me it may not. As long as we are trying to align ourselves with Jesus and his Kingdom, then I don't see a problem with what you do. Still, that doesn't mean we can't challenge each other to try and bring them to a better understanding of Scripture.

Oh I totally agree. Some of God's people ate meat offered to idols, others did not. Neither were wrong. But doing what they had been convicted was wrong, would have been wrong.

(Just a quick note: one of them was wrong, Paul said so. But neither were sinning, and either of them would have been by going against what they believed.)

I believe that there are many things that are hard to ascertain as to whether they are inherently wrong or inherently right (such as the food offered to idols). However I don't believe that in many instances that neither of these things are wrong, or that both are right. Yes, it comes down to the heart that is committing the act (i.e., it would be wrong for me to wilfully eat pork believing as I do), but I think that a lot of these issues will be made abundantly clear at the end of time and Christ reveals the rights and wrongs to us. I believe there is always definite right and wrong, but we will not always be %100 certain on all of them.

Where did Paul say one or the other was wrong? He said that the meat offered to idols was not a sin, but he did not say that the person who could not eat the meat offered to idols because of their past, was wrong. And he told the bretheren to protect that brother by not trying to force our way or parade around our ability to eat meat offered to idols.

Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean. He said that there is nothing unclean. But then he said that if someone believes it is unclean, and eats it anyway, then he is sinning. It is a matter of the heart.

Sorry, I think I forgot to respond to this. My second question could be reworded as:

Is morality essentially a law?

Or perhaps: Is being moral the same thing as following a certain set of rules?

And also: Can we know morality apart from Scripture?

Right. Like I said, he didn't say one or the other was wrong.

Unless you are saying that nothing is unclean, as in nothing in and of itself is wrong, in which I would disagree.

Morality (to an extent) can be known apart from scripture. People can be good citizens, which requires following a set of moral rules which their country deems important. Yet, people cannot be truly good, for no one is good but God. Even Christians cannot be purely good, but are only righteous through God's grace.

As of morality being a law, I'd say it was for the Israelite nation. They did not know good and evil apart from the law. Now, however, I believe that as long as we following the law of morality is not as important as having love for all people. As a pastor I listen to says, "A love-based ethic, rather than a law-based ethic." As long as we have love for both parties (the 'good' party and the 'evil' party) then I believe we are following the moral code. So, summing it up, morality is not a set of laws (though morality can be confused as such) morality is following our conscience and aligning ourselves as closely to God as we can.

What do you mean by "love" here?

Love as in agape love: unconditional, self-sacrificing, wanting-the-best-for-the-other, God-like love.

The Bible condones Rahab's actions...it was lying that saved her, and even, as said in the New Testament, justified her.

The only lying mentioned in the ten commandments is slanderous lying intended to hurt someone else.

I know the Bible talks about lying quite generally at times, but after studying it, I come to the conclusion that there are two sorts of lies. The first is selfish or self-preserving, lying to cover up your own mistakes or sins. This is what is wrong. The other is used to combat evil (such as what Rahab did), to protect innocence, whether in defense of the lives of others or your own life. Just as intentional killing (murder) is not wrong when you're taking out an evil man who's holding a child hostage, telling a lie is not wrong when you're using it to protect a life. Actions that are wrong when used to protect a guilty conscience can be right when used to protect innocence. This is the principle of the love-based ethics you're talking about.

*gasp* A post from Matt! It's been too log since I've seen your name on one of my threads... Anyway. I actually wrote a practice SAT essay on whether deception is ever justified. I should type it up when I get it back from my teacher.

For further discussion of lying, please head over to the lying thread.

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=4929

*loves Matt's post! *

Bah. Sorry. I derailed my own thread.