# ******What I've learned on H2O.

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by AF [AF] on November 06, 1999 at 01:19:11 {p8g/8h8r5Q1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:

In Reply to: *****What I've learned on H2O. posted by Friend on November 05, 1999 at 13:54:04:

:: I tend to agree, although I'll venture that our gut notions of spirituality differ a good deal. To me, a spiritual person does not need to have anything to do with traditional religious concepts, or even religion at all. Of course, this is a broader notion of spirituality than most people have.

: Compare your views with my feelings about how Jesus will judge. Besides the mechanism of Armageddon (or destruction) tell me how close our views are on what constitutes favorable judgment.

Ok, I didn't really mean to get on this topic but it's certainly worth talking about. In your linked post you said this:

> It is pretty much the same with the exception that God will not particularly favor Jehovah's Witnesses by virtue of professing such or otherwise. My understanding of "the end" is the time when Jesus judges the entire world of mankind in respects to the good news provided by him, which essentially requires a good condition of heart. People accepting the good news and gaining a corresponding heart condition or otherwise gaining or having the good condition of heart will be judged worthy of future provisions under God's Kingdom. Those judged otherwise will loose future life.

Your qualification of "or otherwise gaining or having the good condition of heart" as opposed to "people accepting the good news and gaining a corresponding heart condition" is extremely unusual for a JW, or any other Christian. If I understand you right, I commend you for having such a big heart.

I'd like to think that that's the way Jesus would judge, assuming he exists. There are plenty of people in the world who are extremely moral, and extremely spiritual according to my present standards, although they're hardly what your average Christian would call moral or spiritual. Some of the most moral and spiritual people I know are avowed atheists, and I'd trust my life or my deepest secrets with them before I would almost any Christian I've ever known. As far as I'm concerned, among the best statements about morality and true spirituality is in Micah 6:8. If your ideas allow favorable judgment on people who essentially act according to that, even though atheists or agnostics or of any other religious or philosophical views, then I would say that our views match closely.

:: Most of the reason that people hate to admit that the Bible approves of lying is that lying is almost always thought of as a terrible sin. I believe that it isn't always.

: I do not believe that the Bible approves of lying. But that conclusion is based upon my understanding of what the Bible represents by the term. If you apply the common definition (Webster) then you can say that.

Well, my point is that the commonly used definition is the definition, since the meaning of words is determined by how people use them. I agree that "to lie" usually has a negative connotation and therefore usually implies a negative moral judgment, but not always. Roget's Thesaurus gives several related words that clearly don't necessarily imply a negative moral flavor, such as "tell a falsehood, falsify, be untruthful, misrepresent, mislead, deceive." To say that someone misled a potential murderer so as to save his family has no negative connotation, whereas using the words "lied to" instead of "misled" does. In the same way, the Bible describes situations where certain otherwise righteous people were untruthful, or lied, for a good purpose.

Perhaps a more acceptable term would be "white lie", for which the Oxford Dictionary gives this definition: "a consciously untrue statement which is not considered criminal; a falsehood rendered venial or praiseworthy by its motive". The Bible certainly approves of white lies.

: But I do not believe that definition holds moral precedent over the Bible or the views of society. The whole idea of lying or not is one of morality.

Not according to normal usage of the word. It may or may not involve a moral judgment. As the terms I've pointed out indicate, it may involve a negative or positive or neutral moral judgment. The problem here, as I've said, is one of terminology, nothing more.

: Perhaps the following will help you understand my view a little better.

: Untruth:
: Intentionally telling an untruth is an action.
: The term "lie" represents an adverse moral judgment of intentionally telling an untruth.
: [See below to fill in this blank]

: Taking human life:
: Intentionally taking human life is an action.
: The term "murder" represents an adverse moral judgment of intentionally taking human life.
: The term "self-defense" represents a favorable judgment of intentionally taking human life.

I don't agree that your comparison is valid. "Murder" is by definition the unlawful taking of human life and is always wrong. "Lying" is by definition "telling an untruth with intent to deceive" and may be lawful (good, right, proper) or not. "Self-defense" might be done lawfully or not, or rightly or wrongly.

Back to Untruth:

: Call it whatever you will,

That's the problem: English has no good, single word for what we want to call "it" that doesn't involve the word "lie" or almost exactly equate to it, as the examples I've set out above indicate.

: but in similar respects I hold that some instances of intentionally telling an untruth can/have/do receive favorable judgment

I agree with that.

: and are considered other than a "lie".

What term do you suggest? "White lie" might work, but is a bit wimpy. "Fool" or "deceive" or "tell a falsehood to" are better but they still carry a negative connotation. An instructive scenario is in 1 Kings 22:20-23, where Jehovah himself commissions a "lying spirit" or a "deceptive spirit" to "fool" or "lure" or "entice" Ahab into a disastrous course. The Bible minces no words here, and neither should we. Jehovah approved of the "spirit" lying to Ahab, period.

I looked up several references about how "lie" and "liar" are used in the Bible. Concerning the Greek word "pseustes" (liar) the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Balz & Schneider; Eerdman's; 1993; vol. 3; p. 499) says, "... pseustes is usually used of the attitude of opposition to God and the inclination toward what is worthless. It is not a matter of untrue or incorrect words, but rather of a person's opposition to God." Of course, the Bible also uses that word, and the equivalent Hebrew word, in normal or even positive ways as well. God's putting a "lying spirit" into the mouths of a bunch of prophets was certainly not in opposition to himself or his standards.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Kittel, Friedrich & Bromiley; Eerdman's; 1974; vol. IX; p. 594) says of the family of Greek words related to "pseustes", "The primary meaning is `false' in the broad sense, ... false assertion, ... error, ... a deliberately false statement... The active verb ... means `to deceive' ... `to speak falsely' ... `to lie to' ... The noun pseusos means `what is untrue,' `deceit,' `falsehood,' `lying,' `lie,' ..." On page 596, after describing several forms of lying and uses of the word in Greek literature, this reference comments, "These norms leave scope for deception, as in the affirmation of one who is intellectually superior... Thus Odysseus is no swindler... Lies for social or political reasons are also permissible (friendship or the state) when some aim or need requires..." This reference also indicates (pp. 597-8) usages and forms of the Hebrew equivalent: "to lie, to be a liar, to deceive, to give the lie to". It says that the noun form in Jeremiah and the Psalms means "false witness". On page 598 the reference comments further, "In wisdom and everyday morality (Prv. 30:8) lying and liars are generally condemned (Ps. 4:2; 62:4). Wisdom, however, works out refined distinctions between calumniation, action, and silence ... On the margin is recognition of the lie of necessity, Gn. 12:13; Jer. 38:24-27."

Thus the Bible itself indicates a range of moral judgments about lying. It uses the same word for the entire range, just as we do in English.

: The scenario of the violent rapist is, in my opinion, just such an instance. I believe the instance with Rahab is another such example, a biblical one.

I agree.

: I think the perceived need to call "it" something is manifest in the JW expression "Theocratic War Strategy".

Very perceptive.

:: I'm not aware of where the Bible defines "lie" either in Hebrew or Greek, so I can't comment. I assume that the normal definitions would apply.

: I believe it is only defined as applied. I have already offered my conclusions based upon application.

The material and Bible examples given above show the range of application.

: Otherwise I believe you and I see pretty much eye-to-eye on the moral aspects of deception.

Glory be! I think we do.

In your additional post you wrote this:

: Regarding the English I think you may find interesting the following definition of "lie".

: lie ... To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; to say or do that which is intended to deceive another, when he a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation. (Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary Version published 1913)

: I do not contend that the definition above is in every respect representative of common usage of the term today. However, that definition above evidences that lying or not is a moral question. In other words, in cases where deception is moral then it is not a lie. I think that pretty well fits my own understanding of how "lie" is applied in the Bible.

That's not what the definition you supplied says. It says that lying may involve a moral question, but you've said that the definition proves something that does not follow logically from the definition. To see this in the language of formal logic, I'll put the definition and your conclusion in the formalized form of two propositions:

(1) If morality requires you to tell the truth and you deceive, then you lie.
(2) If morality does not require you to tell the truth and you deceive, then you do not lie.

In terms of formal logic we have:

(1) If A and B, then C.
(2) If NOT A and B, then NOT C

Clearly, (2) may or may not be true irrespective of (1), but in either case (2) does not follow logically from (1).

So, except on the matter of whether we should label "morally proper deception" as lying, I think we agree on the basic principle that sometimes it's ok to deceive.

The problem is then to decide what exactly is "morally proper deception" and who is to decide it.

AF

Follow Ups:

- *******What I've learned on H2O. Friend 06:48:43 11/06/99 (3)
  - ********What I've learned on H2O. AF 08:40:28 11/06/99 (2)
    - *********What I've learned on H2O. Friend 10:09:52 11/06/99 (1)
      - **********What I've learned on H2O. AF 17:16:54 11/06/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *******What I've learned on H2O.

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]