Posted by AF [AF] on November 05, 1999 at 13:33:19 {6xiCHW3gJ2DjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: ***What I've learned on H2O. posted by Friend on November 05, 1999 at 11:04:22:
:: You've raised some interesting questions that I've thought much about.
: I suppose you mean that accepted versus that tolerate? If so, yes, that is a very thought provoking area and one I think can only finally be worked out by each individual.
That too, but mostly I had in mind what I commented on. As far as accepting versus tolerating, you had said this:
::: On a spiritual plane I hold that thinkers will and accept and tolerate certain evaluations that would not be tolerated if only examined intellectually.
I have a great deal of trouble with this in a general sense. Truth is simply another word for reality. In general if we don’t act according to reality, we’ll find ourselves in trouble. But I’m talking about what is, whereas by “certain evaluations” I think you’re talking about what opinions or judgments we might make about reality or about what ought to be. This is really too fuzzy for me to want to deal with and that’s why I didn’t comment.
:: What exactly do you mean by "spirituality"? There are many ideas out there on this, but you haven't explained what you mean by it.
: I cannot define spirituality in specific terms. It is a need that I have and feel just like I feel hunger for literal food. I believe all humans have it. I will ponder this more to better describe my use of “spirituality.”
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.
:: As for "theocratic warfare", I think your ideas leave something to be desired. An intentional untruth is by definition a lie. Lies may be told with a good or bad end in view, but they are still lies. Saying that a lie told with good intention is not a lie manifests precisely the attitude that has resulted in accusations of intellectual dishonesty on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses generally, and Watchtower leaders in particular. If you want to lie towards a good end, then do it honestly by admitting to yourself that you've told a lie. I certainly agree that under some circumstances lying is not a crime. In some situations I would not hesitate for an instant to lie, but I would not try to tell myself that I had not lied. The problem with how JWs apply this principle is that they think that lying for God or for the Society is not a crime, and so they don't view it as lying. This is pure Orwellian doublethink.
: Yes, by common definition a lie is any intentional untruth expressed. That is why I restricted my application of the term “lie” to that classified in the Bible as a lie versus the common use of the term. Rahab intentionally told an untruth for which specific act she was attributed righteousness. (Joshua 2:1-7; James 2:25; Hebrews 11:31) The Bible condemns liars. (Revelation 21:8) I do not believe those texts are contradictory. Instead I think the Bible’s application of “lie” is as I have postulated. That is, that sometimes intentional untruth is not classified as a lie. In Rahab’s case her action was that of intentionally uttering an untruth but God did not consider it a lie. It was not considered dishonest. It was not considered a crime. Instead her actions were considered upright and good. She was not classified as a liar.
All that may be true, but it means that we ought to invent a new word for the one that is normally translated “lie” in the Bible. I don’t know about other languages, but in English a lie is defined by whether a thing said is true or not. The intention of the speaker has nothing to do with the definition or general use of the word. In that sense we must accept the fact that the Bible advocates lying under certain circumstances, and in fact, that God himself approves of some lies and has on occasion specifically approved of angels lying.
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. Life sometimes presents us with terrible choices. If I had to choose between telling a lie and seeing my loved ones die a horrible death, guess which I would choose. I would not be doing wrong – I would be doing right by telling that lie.
: In my conclusions I have not simply argued that uttering untruth with good intentions is not a lie. It is true that my opinion is that the difference between an intentional untruth that is a lie versus an intentional untruth that is not a lie has to do with intentions (i.e., genuine and unselfish). However, you should note that those intentions are further confined by that which is legitimate or not as determined by the Bible (which, IMO, includes considerations for society).
Again, it would be helpful if English had specific words for “lies told with good intentions” and “lies told with bad intentions”.
: An example is where you tell an untruth to a violent rapist to protect your family. Have you lied according to Webster? Yes. Have you lied according to the Bible? I do not think you have.
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.
: Under such circumstance Christians should not consider that God would classify their action as a lie. Also I do not believe society at large will classify that person as a liar or their action a lie.
If we’re sticking to English, I will disagree. A lie is a lie, period. Whether God or society at large would condemn someone for telling a “good lie” is another question altogether.
My concern is about deceiving oneself into thinking that a lie told with good intention is not really a lie. It leads to all sorts of abuse as experience shows. If we admit to ourselves, “I’m telling a lie here with a good motive”, we’ll think much more carefully about lying in the little things than we would if we told ourselves, “I’m not really lying”. It amounts to being careful to be faithful in what is least, and to not engaging in self-deception.
A particular example of my concern is that blanket attitude that it’s not really lying to tell untruths with good intentions, because it leads to the kind of abuse of the truth that we often find in Watchtower publications. A writer will sometimes tell only certain things which, taken on their own, are not lies, but which without the full story will lead readers to a wrong conclusion. Thus the writer can mislead readers while telling himself, “I’m not really lying”.
The problem here is where a truly honest person should draw the line. That’s why I think that people should never tell themselves, “I’m not really lying” but “I’m lying for a justifiable purpose”.
: In this I am not being dishonest with myself because I know perfectly well that under those circumstances I am telling something untrue and would not deny doing so apart from the moment. I just do not consider that that makes me a liar any biblical sense. I also do not consider that you would find those actions of mine as dishonesty. Quite to the contrary I think you would find my actions as legitimate, unselfish and honestly protective of my family in the face of something undeserving of anything good.
In the case of the rapist, I would certainly find anyone’s actions to be as you say. But again my concern is where one draws the line. I’ve been lied to by a variety of JWs, certainly almost always with their thinking they had good intentions. Certainly most of them would not think that they were lying in any sense at all, although if they observed identical conduct on the part of others they’d recognize it immediately. What you might call “telling an intentional untruth with good motive” they would call “telling the truth” and I would call “telling a lie”. I hope you understand why I’m so concerned with this subject.
: As I have already mentioned, I do not agree with every application of the so-called “Theocratic Warfare”.
On that we agree.
AF