Originally posted by robbie carrobieLying to a person who is threatening to murder you or your family is not "renouncing one's faith". Is your faith something so brittle? "Can [I] see why that might be problematic for a devout Christian?" No, not at all.
Would you renounce your faith to save your life? Can you see why that might be problematic for a devout Christian?
As I said, I see 'not lying [about one's beliefs] to someone carrying out the Nazi Holocaust' or 'not lying to a person who is threatening to murder you or your family' as a kind of almost hysterical pride or vanity, a kind of suicidal religionist fervour, and not a genuine or meaningful exercise of principle or application of ethics. It would be a sheer folly that proved not a single thing about one's beliefs, in my view. How can one's beliefs be so shallow and affected that they can somehow be "renounced" by something you say to a murderer or to someone forcing humans into gas chambers?
12 Aug 14
Originally posted by FMFWhat if they ask you to renounce your faith? for this has in fact happened? It has nothing to do with being brittle and has everything to do with integrity or are you unaware that some people are willing to die for a principle?
Lying to a person who is threatening to murder you or your family is not "renouncing one's faith". Is your faith something so brittle? "Can [I] see why that might be problematic for a devout Christian?" No, not at all.
12 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFyou keep banding about these terms, brittle and shallow, hysterical and prideful, which is not helping anyone understand anything. The fact of the matter is that for the Christian there are simply some things that are more precious than life itself and indeed the pagans were amazed by the early Christians willingness to endure all manner of hardship for principles which they held more precious than life itself. That its meaningless to you proves or says nothing.
As I said, I see 'not lying [about one's beliefs] to someone carrying out the Nazi Holocaust' or 'not lying to a person who is threatening to murder you or your family' as a kind of almost hysterical pride or vanity, a kind of suicidal religionist fervour, and not a genuine or meaningful exercise of principle or application of ethics. It would be a sheer folly t ...[text shortened]... e "renounced" by something you say to a murderer or to someone forcing humans into gas chambers?
12 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNothing you said about your faith to someone carrying out the Nazi Holocaust or threatening to murder you or your family would have any effect on your faith, to my way of thinking.
What if they ask you to renounce your faith? for this has in fact happened? It has nothing to do with being brittle and has everything to do with integrity or are you unaware that some people are willing to die for a principle?
12 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf they help anyone to understand my point of view on the "Ethics of Lying" then I will have made a contribution to the discussion.
you keep banding about these terms, brittle and shallow, hysterical and prideful, which is not helping anyone understand anything.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI haven't claimed that I am trying to "prove" anything, and if you find my opinion "meaningless" then that is fine. I have entered this discussion knowing full well what your personal opinion is on this topic. And seeing as this thread is about discussing or sharing our opinions, I do not ~ of course ~ find your opinion meaningless.
The fact of the matter is that for the Christian there are simply some things that are more precious than life itself and indeed the pagans were amazed by the early Christians willingness to endure all manner of hardship for principles which they held more precious than life itself. That its meaningless to you proves or says nothing.
12 Aug 14
Originally posted by FMFsorry my bad i forgot its all about you and your opinions and people cannot discuss anything objectively. I will try not to make the same mistake again.
I haven't claimed that I am trying to "prove" anything, and if you find my opinion "meaningless" then that is fine. I have entered this discussion knowing full well what your personal opinion is on this topic. And seeing as this thread is about discussing or sharing our opinions, I do not ~ of course ~ find your opinion meaningless.
12 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't see how lying to the person threatening to murder you affects this. There are so many precious things that a living Christian could do for his family and community once the would be murderer was gone. How would what you had said to him affect your belief in God?
The fact of the matter is that for the Christian there are simply some things that are more precious than life itself ...
12 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is a Spirituality Forum, robbie. People share their analysis, state and defend their opinions, and some proselytise.
sorry my bad i forgot its all about you and your opinions and people cannot discuss anything objectively. I will try not to make the same mistake again.
12 Aug 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemFirst, the moral consequences of lying vs allowing someone to be tortured for eternity are so infinitely far apart as to not be comperable, so the effectiveness rate in this case should be completely inconsequential.
The effectiveness of a technique can change the moral evaluation regarding its use. Moral decisions often come down to weighing good consequences vs. bad consequences and choosing the lesser evil/greater good. If a morally controversial action is ineffective, one can argue that it's not morally correct because it ought to be obvious to the actor that little good can come of it, and much harm.
Second, do you actually think the theists here that aren't addressing the question (I exclude Robbie, because he did answer) are doing so because they actually believe that lying is 100% inneffective? I don't think a rational person could even consider it possible that in all of human history, not one individual had been swayed toward Christianity due to a lie. I contend that they are merely hiding behind ineffectiveness claims because they realize how intellectually contradictory and immoral their positions are.
12 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by PatNovakI have never heard of a lie to help the Christian Church. The apostle Peter lied three times by denying that he knew Jesus, but that was to protect himself, not the Christian Church as far as I can tell.
I thought this quote from Martin Luther was interesting:
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
I think most of us would lie if we thought that the good outcome ...[text shortened]... ng would increase your chances of saving someone for eternity, would you do so? If not, why not?
I have heard of little white lies in an attempt to spare the feelings of another person or to provide temporary happiness to children with the myth of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Some people lie about their age.
But the command from God is to not to bear false witness, even if you want to help the accused, because it may hurt someone else and justice will not be served. However, in the case of the lying that was done to protect the Jews from annihilation by the Nazis, I would give a pass, but I am not God.
12 Aug 14
Originally posted by RJHindsSo if you would give a pass to an individual who lied in an attempt to protect a Jew from Nazis, would you also give a pass to someone who lied in an attempt to protect that same Jew from Hell?
However, in the case of the lying that was done to protect the Jews from annihilation by the Nazis, I would give a pass, but I am not God.