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

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

Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 05, 1999 at 13:54:04 {6xiCHW3gJ2rRIg7iiOekOgnjR4Br/g}:

In Reply to: ****What I've learned on H2O. posted by AF on November 05, 1999 at 13:33:19:

AF

> 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.

> 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. 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. 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.

  Back to Untruth:

  Call it whatever you will, but in similar respects I hold that some instances of intentionally telling an untruth can/have/do receive favorable judgment and are considered other than a “lie”. 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 think the perceived need to call “it” something is manifest in the JW expression “Theocratic War Strategy”.

  > 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.

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

  Friend

  Follow Ups:

  - ******What I've learned on H2O. AF 01:19:11 11/06/99 (4)
    - *******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)
  - ******What I've learned on H2O. Friend addendum 20:54:42 11/05/99 (1)
    - *******What I've learned on H2O. WW 22:14:14 11/05/99 (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 ]