|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 7, 2009 2:42:45 GMT -5
Spies, camouflage, and anything of the such are acceptable because we can find passages in the Bible which prove that the Lord accepted such. Why do you require specific authority for camouflage when we are given general authority by the bible-vindicated natural revelation of the value of human life? The general principle does not restrict the specific application. What about sign language? Does the bible prohibit deceptive sign language? I guess we could go back and forth pointing out that a particular instance of dishonesty is not condemned or commended in a passage. Maybe that's not the right approach. Applying principles to specific situations is not being governed by our situations. who said anything about subjectivity? Perhaps you should summarize what you think I believe because it seems like you might have misunderstood me. If lying for certain reasons is not wrong, I wouldn't expect a verse to spell that out for me. There is plenty of good teaching that wasn't recorded in the bible. Does the bible teach that communicating accurate information is more important than preserving human life? If so then what principle would justify the use of camouflage?
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 7, 2009 7:58:18 GMT -5
Why do you require specific authority for camouflage when we are given general authority by the bible-vindicated natural revelation of the value of human life? The general principle does not restrict the specific application. Does the bible teach that communicating accurate information is more important than preserving human life? If so then what principle would justify the use of camouflage? Numbers 13 authorizes the use of secret operations for the military by an approved example. The Bible teaches that you should trust in God when you're tempted to sin instead of taking the matter into your own hands and committing sin. Does the bible prohibit deceptive sign language? The Bible condemns such. First you said: I guess we could go back and forth pointing out that a particular instance of dishonesty is not condemned or commended in a passage. Maybe that's not the right approach.And then you turned right around and said: If lying for certain reasons is not wrong, I wouldn't expect a verse to spell that out for me. I would! You continue: There is plenty of good teaching that wasn't recorded in the bible. Though it is true that there are good teachings outside of the Bible. However, they are only good teachings because they agree with what the Bible teaches. God has given us everything that pertains to life and Godliness and the scriptures are able to furnish an individual unto every good work. If lying is ever accepted as a good work then we would expect the scriptures to explain that to us in some way or another. If searching the scriptures for approved or condemned examples is not the right approach, and we shouldn't find specific approval of situational ethics, then I can only fear how you would justify the practice of such. who said anything about subjectivity? Perhaps you should summarize what you think I believe because it seems like you might have misunderstood me. You've made yourself very clear that our situation dictates our moral response. Ben, if you would just show us one Bible verse where God approves of a lying tongue, then we can all shake hands and be on our way. If you cannot do this then you are only defending sin. JDW
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 7, 2009 18:48:44 GMT -5
Why do you require specific authority for camouflage when we are given general authority by the bible-vindicated natural revelation of the value of human life? The general principle does not restrict the specific application. Does the bible teach that communicating accurate information is more important than preserving human life? If so then what principle would justify the use of camouflage? Numbers 13 authorizes the use of secret operations for the military by an approved example. Camouflage is a form of deception. If camouflage is not condemned in the scripture then not all deception is condemned in the scripture. If the military is allowed to deceive then there must be some reason that they are allowed to deceive. What is the reason? Not "what is the bible verse?" What is the reason FOR the supposed bible verse? What is the reason deception is permitted in one situation and not in another? How is it that it can be loving for the military to use deception but unloving for a civilian to use deception? Couldn't the civilian have similar motives to those of the deceiving soldier? If our honest motives are not what determines the moral quality of a choice then we could choose things that looked good outwardly while having bad motives. this begs the question. By explicit example? By direct precept? Or in principle? If the bible can condemn via principle then why can it not justify via principle? For instance the obvious fact that human life is more valuable than communicating accurate information. Which do you think is more valuable? Or do you think that morality is divorced from value? Is right and wrong something God makes up arbitrarily? or something that can be judged by intelligent beings? What do you mean by turned around? I was saying the same thing twice. It could read like this: "I guess we could go back and forth pointing out that a particular instance of dishonesty is not condemned or commended in a passage." BUT "Maybe that's not the right approach." BECAUSE "If lying for certain reasons is not wrong, I wouldn't expect a verse to spell that out for me." I agree. But you don't allow for "another" way when you demand a specific verse that spells it out for you. For you it is not "some way or another" it is only in a way that doesn't require thinking, that is, only a specific example or precept to spell it out. Fearing what I might say is not your only option. I said before: "Applying principles to specific situations is not being governed by our situations." Love dictates our moral response. A situation may dictate the particular method, expression, or application of love but it does not ever dictate that we should be unloving. How is that different than my asking you to show me a verse that condemns deceptive body language? Do you think members of the FBI or CIA are allowed to lie if they are undercover agents? What about the underground railroad? Would it be alright to answer the door and say "nope, no slaves here!" or would that be wicked? Is fishing with a lure a sin? "Whatever is not of the bible is sin."? The bible was made for man, not man for the bible.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 7, 2009 19:21:34 GMT -5
Yes, Ben. I wish you would watch the video series I posted. The Bible can authorize things by principle. However, you have failed to show a single Bible principle that would authorize an individual to speak falsely. Also, let us not confuse the authority of the Government with the authority of the individual. The individual cannot act on behalf of the Government unless that authority has been given to him from the Government. The Government cannot act on behalf of the church either.
This dialogue is getting old. If you can provide any verses to support situational ethics, please do so.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 8, 2009 0:08:14 GMT -5
Yes, Ben. I wish you would watch the video series I posted. I thought I did. I didn't realize it was more than one video. I referenced the general vs specific concept in a previous post in order to let you know that I had watched it. How many videos is it? How long altogether? Then what are we disagreeing about? I don't understand what your objection is to the principle I've been suggesting. - "The right to live is more fundamental than the right to accurate information." - "It just seems ridiculous to me to say that telling the truth is more important than someone's life." - "It sounds so much like the pharisees to make the accuracy of communicated information more valuable than a human being." - "we are given general authority by the bible-vindicated natural revelation of the value of human life" - "Does the bible teach that communicating accurate information is more important than preserving human life?" - "For instance the obvious fact that human life is more valuable than communicating accurate information." The only reason human government has rights and value is because individuals have rights and value. The rights and value of individuals are more fundamental than the rights and value of human government. The value of individuals is what prompted God to establish human government. If the government has the right to use deception in order to defend the lives of its individual citizens then individual citizens must have the right to use deception to defend their own lives if the government fails to protect them. The government can not have any rights that are not rooted in the rights of individuals. If the government has rights beyond what the natural rights of individuals allow then the government becomes a tyranny. What do you think? Do you agree with that? If not what is your objection? Are these not valid principles which we can also see in the bible? I won't be offended if you wanted to end the discussion for some reason. I'm finding it challenging and educational but maybe you feel differently.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 8, 2009 9:34:10 GMT -5
I thought I did. I didn't realize it was more than one video. I referenced the general vs specific concept in a previous post in order to let you know that I had watched it. How many videos is it? How long altogether? It was three videos long. (30 Mins) - "The right to live is more fundamental than the right to accurate information." - "Does the bible teach that communicating accurate information is more important than preserving human life?" - "For instance the obvious fact that human life is more valuable than communicating accurate information." I've grouped these three together in order to address them easily: We know that the right to live is not greater than the right to accurate information because in Romans 1:29 we are told that deceivers are not worthy of life, but of death! "being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." We also need to remember that life never ceases to exist. Our bodies turn to dust and our souls live eternally. So to say that the value of a fleshly body outweighs the transmission of accurate information is to compare everlasting truth to a destructible material! Further more, there are more options than speaking the truth. For instance, I can choose to say nothing like Jesus did in Luke 23:9. I'm glad Jesus didn't value human life more than the transmission of accurate information. - "It just seems ridiculous to me to say that telling the truth is more important than someone's life." - "It sounds so much like the pharisees to make the accuracy of communicated information more valuable than a human being." I believe we need to stop using our own understanding to prove what is right and just in the eyes of God. I'm not, for one instance, saying that we should not love the Lord with all of our mind, I'm only taking into consideration the proverb which says "There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death." (Proverbs 14:12 NASB.) It is not reasoning within ones self that is considered loving the Lord with all of ones mind but instead the reasoning within the scriptures to understand what the good and pleasing will of the Lord is. In fact, reasoning within ones self is anything but loving God with all of our minds. - "we are given general authority by the bible-vindicated natural revelation of the value of human life" There can be no general authority unless there is first specific authority and feelings do not constitute as specific authority. It also appears that this "natural revelation" you refer to is some sort of supernatural inclination to do and know good. I would agree that we have a "bible-vindicated natural revelation" but it is not supernatural. God's laws have been naturally instituted and we are born into a world which, for the most part, upholds these moral inclinations. These moral inclinations also came about through the transmission of accurate information! To say that this "Bible-vindicated natural revelation" is a supernatural endowed attribute that exists within every individual is to say that our ethics are purely subjectional because not everyone agrees on aspects of morality. The only reason human government has rights and value is because individuals have rights and value. The reason why the Government has rights is because God has given them to it. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: The powers that be are ordained of God."
The rights and value of individuals are more fundamental than the rights and value of human government. The rights of an individual are equally important and fundamental to that of the governments rights. It is for this reason: A right cannot be had unless it has been given to one from God. Therefore every right that an individual has is just as fundamental as the right that the government has because both have been established by God himself. The value of individuals is what prompted God to establish human government. If the government has the right to use deception in order to defend the lives of its individual citizens then individual citizens must have the right to use deception to defend their own lives if the government fails to protect them. Not really. That's like saying "since the government can put men to death, I can put men to death." (I would not recommend you exercising this logic any more than deception.) An individual only has the right to defend himself if the government has given him the authority to do so. For instance, in the state of Arkansas, I have the right to exercise my right in baring arms. That is, if an individual breaks into my house, the Government has given me the authority to defend myself and my family. The government can not have any rights that are not rooted in the rights of individuals. The Government has every right that God has given to it and the individual has every right that God has given to them. The Government has been given the right to take vengeance and execute wrath upon those who do evil. The individual is to turn the other cheek. (Romans 13:4 Matthew 5:39) The Government has been given the right to use deception in secret operations. An individual cannot participate in these secret operations unless that authority has been given to him from the government. I believe you'd go to jail for impersonating a government official. There's a clear distinction made between the government, the church and individuals within the scriptures. We all realize, believe, and understand that not all forms of deception are condemned by God. However, the way that we know which ones are approved or condemned are by searching the scriptures, and not our feelings. Your objective is to find just one instance where God ever approved of the deception of a lying tongue. If the government has rights beyond what the natural rights of individuals allow then the government becomes a tyranny. "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." Romans 13:3
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 8, 2009 11:39:44 GMT -5
If you can provide any verses to support situational ethics, please do so. Joshuah 2:14 And the men answered her, Our life for yours, if you utter not this our business. And it shall be, when the LORD has given us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with you.IOW, don't tell any one what you & we are up to, even if they come to you and ask, you must lie to them in order for you to live and for us to be successful in our mission.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 8, 2009 12:06:58 GMT -5
If you can provide any verses to support situational ethics, please do so. Joshuah 2:14 And the men answered her, Our life for yours, if you utter not this our business. And it shall be, when the LORD has given us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with you.IOW, don't tell any one what you & we are up to, even if they come to you and ask, you must lie to them in order for you to live and for us to be successful in our mission. Withholding information's approved of God on several occasions a lying tongue's not.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 8, 2009 14:45:15 GMT -5
Joshuah 2:14 And the men answered her, Our life for yours, if you utter not this our business. And it shall be, when the LORD has given us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with you.IOW, don't tell any one what you & we are up to, even if they come to you and ask, you must lie to them in order for you to live and for us to be successful in our mission. Withholding information's approved of God on several occasions a lying tongue's not. Rahab did not only Withhold information, but lied about what she did & where the men went. Jos 2:4-5 " I know not from where they were, and it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out: where the men went I know not." Or "The men are Hebrews & they are on my roof right now" She had to say something; she would have sinned if she told the truth.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 8, 2009 15:12:45 GMT -5
Withholding information's approved of God on several occasions a lying tongue's not. Rahab did not only Withhold information, but lied about what she did & where the men went. Jos 2:4-5 " I know not from where they were, and it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out: where the men went I know not." Or "The men are Hebrews & they are on my roof right now" She had to say something; she would have sinned if she told the truth. She didn't have to say anything. She would not have sinned if she would have told the truth in verse 4.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 8, 2009 23:19:15 GMT -5
Hi Jonathan, I watched the other two videos. I had his terminology mixed up. What he calls "specific authority" I was thinking of as "general obligation" while what he calls "generic authority" I was thinking of as the "specifics of fulfilling that obligation". When I said we have general authority to show regard for the value of human life I meant that we have specific authority to treat human life as something valuable. The generic authority or how that all plays out depends upon the situation just as where Noah got the wood for the ark would have depended upon his situation.
Since I believe that rights and duties can be more or less fundamental than other rights and duties depending on their relationship to the purpose of all right and duty, I therefore believe that the duty to tell the truth may be less fundamental than the duty to preserve human life.
This is assuming your own view of lying. If there are exceptions, they would apply to any such passages. It is circular reasoning to use your interpretation of bible passages to prove your interpretation of the same passages.
If that is logical it would apply to a situation where the only way to stop a person from molesting a child was to kill them. If your theory is true then maybe it would be better to let the man molest the child so that he can live and repent. Is his eternal soul more valuable than the chastity and mental health of the child? I believe I would be justified in taking the life of a child molester (if necessary) in such a situation. So, although I'm not entirely sure how to analyze your objection thoroughly, I'll offer that as an answer. If you agree then we'd have to agree that there may be a flaw in your objection. If you don't agree about killing to protect children, or if you think it is up to the state rather than being inalienable, then I'll have to spend more time analyzing your objection.
It seems to me like he said nothing (led like a lamb to the slaughter) precisely because he valued human life.
That way only leads to death for a selfish man. The wrong way can't lead to death for a loving man. Selfishness seems right to a selfish man. Not in the sense that he doesn't know any better but in the sense that the way of selfishness seems "right" or compatible with his selfish heart. I don't think that proverb teaches ANY way that seems right to you may actually turn out to lead to death. It just says there is "A way", it doesn't say we can't know for sure if we are heading the right way.
God gave the command to love him with all of our minds before there were any scriptures. Loving God with all of our minds was right as soon as Adam was created and had a mind to devote to God in love. What you are saying sounds like a false dichotomy to me. Maybe you can explain further. All reasoning, whether it accepts the scriptures or not, takes place within the reasoning individual. Reasoning, by definition, is reasoning within yourself.
Of course not feelings. We have general authority to "multiply" but that does not give us authority to clone people just for fun. We have the right to reproduce therefore the government (men who are a themselves products of reproduction) does not have the right to tell me I can only have one child. Similarly, if I have the right to defend my own life then the government cannot take this right away. If I have a right to chastity then I have the right to defend myself against being raped. I'm curious whether you believe in such a hierarchy of natural rights?
I don't think I meant anything supernatural in that point. All the lines from my posts which I quoted were basically intended to mean the same thing.
I agree. That is a good reason for liars to be punished in the lake of fire. Lying in such a way so as to subvert someone's good moral inclinations is wicked.
I don't understand. But when I said "natural revelation" I didn't mean anything supernatural.
God gave governmental rights because it was the right thing to do.
God always declares what is already right. It is not right BECAUSE God declared it. God declared it because it was right. If the will of God is the source of moral obligation then all "rights" may be equal as you say. But if happiness for God and man is the source of moral obligation then rights and duties may be more or less fundamental depending upon their relationship to that end.
God commanded us to put murderers to death. That specific command gives us the "generic authority" to choose certain men to do that work and to pay them tribute for their service. In that sense you can put men to death. If you were in a land with no ruler you would be obligated (if you were most qualified) to establish a rule of law to deal with such crimes. But that is not the same as self-defense. I believe people have an inalienable right to defend their own lives with lethal force if necessary. This is a right of individuals which does not require a government at all. If life was not important enough to defend with lethal force then how would murder be important enough to punish with lethal force? Both assume that the guilty party subjects his right to live to the right(s) of the innocent party. He forfeits his right to live by unjustly putting his rights in conflict with the well-being of others. If a murderer can thus forfeit his right to live by attempting to violate my right then how does he not even more easily forfeit any right to my being honest with him? A nation has a right to defend itself with necessary force because the individuals which make up the nation have that right. Who does it and how much they get paid falls under "generic authority". That's why we should always establish order in society and pay respect and money if necessary to those who perform functions of service. Similarly a nation has the right to use not only defensive force but also deception in order to defend itself because the individuals which ARE the nation have that same right. If the military can successfully defend the citizens through their use of deception and force, good! If the military is overwhelmed or otherwise incapable or unwilling to defend the citizens then they may use deception strictly for unselfish defensive purposes if necessary.
The government recognized an inalienable right to life in the constitution. The right to defend yourself is approved of by the federal government by maintaining some pretense of constitutional law. But the constitution denies that the right of self defense is a government-given right by calling the right to life an inalienable right. So if the state government claims that right is state-given then they are making an unlawful claim, ownership of your life, in contradiction to the federal law.
Why do you think the right of self-defense is government given rather than inalienable?
Sure. But turn the other cheek is not talking about self-defense.
That's how you interpret the scripture. Right. There is no reason to usurp governmental authority except in a revolution. Just like I wouldn't deliver everyone mail so long as the postal workers are doing their job and I wouldn't collect trash so long as the trash collectors were picking it up. Not if I did a really good job of it.
Agreed. I never suggested deriving this knowledge directly from our feelings. No it's not. If a man can forfeit his right to live by attempting to take the life of my child for example then he also forfeits his right to my honesty. Therefore if I deceive an attacker out of love for my child and in order to defend her then "against such there is no law." (Gal5:23) I have the specific authority to love my neighbor as myself therefore I have the generic authority to obey this by justly deceiving an unlawful attacker. That's the same principle that God acknowledges by not condemning the use of deception in the military. The nation has the specific authority to love, therefore the generic authority to defend themselves against unjust attackers using the necessary means. The nation does not have the right to kill or deceive whoever they want or for whatever reason they want. We have to act in accordance with the law of love "being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ" (1Cor9:21) but we have generic authority to fulfill the law of love in any way that satisfies the spirit or intent of the law.*(note below) We are under "the perfect law of liberty" (Jas1:25) and "If [we] fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, [we] do well" (Jas2:8). "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Gal5:13-14) "He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. ... if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." (Rom13:8-10) "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Mat22:40) "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." (Jas2:12)
*We know that God knows vastly more than we do and therefore he may command or forbid things even though we don't yet understand the reason. Before addressing that, however, it seems to me that God goes to great lengths to patiently and thoroughly explain the reasons for all of his laws. But my point about commands we don't understand is that if we are interpreting the scriptures to teach something contrary to the law of love then we won't be able to obey our interpretation in good conscience. We should rather question our interpretation and even reject it until it can be reconciled with our having a loving motive.
"God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." (1Jn4:16) We must know what love is in order for this verse to have any meaning to us at all. We must know what love is in order to benefit from all these passages about love. All biblical interpretation must submit itself to the fact that moral obligation is to love and that God himself is loving. In order to properly understand the law we must understand exactly what love is and "divide the word" according to this understanding.
This is not about wicked rulers because it continues, "Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." When a ruler is wicked then he will probably praise people who do bad things (like homosexuals, abortionists, feminists, atheists, thieves, adulterers, liars, etc.) rather than people who do good things. Though tyranny is not a terror to the saints because they have praise from God, it is still unloving, unlawful, wrong.
I'm curious to find out what you think about the source of moral obligation. It seems like it would be a deciding point in one's interpretation of scripture. Maybe that would be a more direct way of coming to an agreement. Sorry the post was so long. You've challenged me to think through a lot of things. Hopefully having thought through them I'll be able to be more concise in the future for time's sake.
|
|