Hey Damon,
How are you and your friend - the one who was/is having trouble and is in danger of losing his/her faith - doing? I got to thinking about that situation because I've been asked to falsify a document at work. I'm going to go the much more difficult route of making the statement truthfully, but I got to thinking that if I no longer believed that God was always truthful, I wouldn't feel obligated to be any more honest than I felt He was. Since I believe that God is the truth and his word is true, I just can't lie. Anyway, I was thinking about your situation (not that we know the details),and I would hate to be in that state of mind.
Michelle
A Question for Damon
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
A Question for Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Michelle.
Rather than commenting on my own situation directly, I'd rather do what I can to help you with yours.
Why do most people lie? I may be overgeneralizing a little, but most people lie because it allows them to get away with something they'd rather not be held accountable for. For example, telling your boss "I was late because I got stuck in traffic" instead of saying that you'd overslept or had forgotten to set your alarm clock.
On the other hand, there are biblical precedents where lying, or even just lying by omission, can be a good thing. Take the case of Jeremiah's visit to King Zedekiah in Jeremiah 38:14-27. The king had Jeremiah lie about the reason for his visit to the king in order to save Jeremiah's own life. Although the king was a weak man who wasn't really willing to stand up for Jeremiah, even if he were strong he couldn't necessarily have protected Jeremiah if the truth had been known.
Also, as a general principle, lying or lying by omission for a good purpose is taught in Proverbs 11:13.
Since you've not shared the circumstances of your being asked to falsify a document at work, I can't really advise you except to tell you to look to the underlying motive. Is the underlying motive to not be held accountable for something that one should be held accountable for? Or, is it for a greater good? In other words, will it do more harm (and I'm not just talking about financial harm, here, but any kind of harm) to falsify the document or to tell the truth?
Damon
Rather than commenting on my own situation directly, I'd rather do what I can to help you with yours.
Why do most people lie? I may be overgeneralizing a little, but most people lie because it allows them to get away with something they'd rather not be held accountable for. For example, telling your boss "I was late because I got stuck in traffic" instead of saying that you'd overslept or had forgotten to set your alarm clock.
On the other hand, there are biblical precedents where lying, or even just lying by omission, can be a good thing. Take the case of Jeremiah's visit to King Zedekiah in Jeremiah 38:14-27. The king had Jeremiah lie about the reason for his visit to the king in order to save Jeremiah's own life. Although the king was a weak man who wasn't really willing to stand up for Jeremiah, even if he were strong he couldn't necessarily have protected Jeremiah if the truth had been known.
Also, as a general principle, lying or lying by omission for a good purpose is taught in Proverbs 11:13.
Since you've not shared the circumstances of your being asked to falsify a document at work, I can't really advise you except to tell you to look to the underlying motive. Is the underlying motive to not be held accountable for something that one should be held accountable for? Or, is it for a greater good? In other words, will it do more harm (and I'm not just talking about financial harm, here, but any kind of harm) to falsify the document or to tell the truth?
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Hi,
I'm being asked to document that something is being done that isn't being done. There is an alternative...I can cause what isn't being done to start happening, but it will take some extra time and work, although that's what I'm going to do. I work for a government institution and we would lose some funding if we can't document that we are doing what we are supposed to be doing. There is no higher good being done for anyone by lying, it's just easier for everyone, and actually could give the impression that we are doing a better job than we are, not that very many people think we are all that effective to begin with.
Michelle
I'm being asked to document that something is being done that isn't being done. There is an alternative...I can cause what isn't being done to start happening, but it will take some extra time and work, although that's what I'm going to do. I work for a government institution and we would lose some funding if we can't document that we are doing what we are supposed to be doing. There is no higher good being done for anyone by lying, it's just easier for everyone, and actually could give the impression that we are doing a better job than we are, not that very many people think we are all that effective to begin with.
Michelle
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Well, you're in an interesting situation. But like you said, the best thing to do would be to say that the only way that you would be willing to falsify the documents is if the institution you worked for immediately started to do what it's supposed to have been doing already. Telling the whole truth would probably cause an unnecessary uproar, make everyone there really resentful that they had to start doing what they were supposed to, and probably lose you your job to boot. But lying without making any sort of an ethical stand would be just as bad.
Right?
By the way, something tells me that they knew what they were supposed to be doing, but decided not to do it up til now because it was too difficult or expensive. Am I right?
Damon
Right?
By the way, something tells me that they knew what they were supposed to be doing, but decided not to do it up til now because it was too difficult or expensive. Am I right?
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Exactly. That and the fact that no one was checking - until now.By the way, something tells me that they knew what they were supposed to be doing, but decided not to do it up til now because it was too difficult or expensive. Am I right?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_achsteven
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 5:36 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Lying to the glory of God?
Scripture says that 'no lie is of the truth'. Yet, if not mistaken, some of the previous reasoning in this string of posts implies that there may be such a thing as a 'sanctified lie' - presumably in situations where the end would seem to justify the means?
Following that chain of logic, wouldn't a professor of Christianity reason (as well) that it would be fair game to fabricate evidences so as to 'lend weight' to the supremacy of the gospel?
If, while communicating with an unbeliever, a sound testimony (or a valid argument) doesn't appear to have a desired effect upon the listener - should statements then be embellished so as to save face for the Almighty - and His gospel?
Where reasoning of that nature is given approval - I expect that, rather than genuine faith, suspicion of forgery is more likely to be awakened among the disbelieving party. Why would the listener give any further confidence to purported proofs, articulated ever so persuasively, while conscious of the fact that the agent allegedly bearing witness to the truth may intentionally exaggerate evidence or fashion a fictional account, just as dutifully as he/she may actually present an unvarnished testimony. Who can tell the difference - particularly when subjective, or unverifiable sources are in question?
-sd
"The desire of a man is his kindness, and a poor man is better than a liar."
Following that chain of logic, wouldn't a professor of Christianity reason (as well) that it would be fair game to fabricate evidences so as to 'lend weight' to the supremacy of the gospel?
If, while communicating with an unbeliever, a sound testimony (or a valid argument) doesn't appear to have a desired effect upon the listener - should statements then be embellished so as to save face for the Almighty - and His gospel?
Where reasoning of that nature is given approval - I expect that, rather than genuine faith, suspicion of forgery is more likely to be awakened among the disbelieving party. Why would the listener give any further confidence to purported proofs, articulated ever so persuasively, while conscious of the fact that the agent allegedly bearing witness to the truth may intentionally exaggerate evidence or fashion a fictional account, just as dutifully as he/she may actually present an unvarnished testimony. Who can tell the difference - particularly when subjective, or unverifiable sources are in question?
-sd
"The desire of a man is his kindness, and a poor man is better than a liar."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Achsteven,
I agree with you that there is a slippery slope one arrives at when you start excusing lies in terms of the ends justifying the means. The example you give, that of an evangelist embellishing the truth to make it more appealing, is troubling and, as you pointed out, can have disasterous results.
However, there seems to be some cases in scripture when lives are at stake, where it seems ok to lie. Damon mentioned Jeremiah already. And what about Rahab when she hid the spies? She said they were gone when they were right there. She was rewarded for her actions and is mentioned as a woman of faith.
What about people who hid Jews from the Nazis? Or people who meet in underground churches in societies where they are not allowed? It just seems that there is a principle that says a life is more important in these cases than the absolute truth.
Damon ~ I'm not so sure about the Proverbs passage, though. Is keeping a friend's confidence or not spreading gossip really lying? And really...I just wanted you to know that I was thinking about your situation, that's all.
I agree with you that there is a slippery slope one arrives at when you start excusing lies in terms of the ends justifying the means. The example you give, that of an evangelist embellishing the truth to make it more appealing, is troubling and, as you pointed out, can have disasterous results.
However, there seems to be some cases in scripture when lives are at stake, where it seems ok to lie. Damon mentioned Jeremiah already. And what about Rahab when she hid the spies? She said they were gone when they were right there. She was rewarded for her actions and is mentioned as a woman of faith.
What about people who hid Jews from the Nazis? Or people who meet in underground churches in societies where they are not allowed? It just seems that there is a principle that says a life is more important in these cases than the absolute truth.
Damon ~ I'm not so sure about the Proverbs passage, though. Is keeping a friend's confidence or not spreading gossip really lying? And really...I just wanted you to know that I was thinking about your situation, that's all.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Michelle.
To answer your question, yes, keeping a confidence can go so far as lying by omission or even lying outright. Let's give the following example. You have a friend who has a problem with alcohol. He knows he has a problem and he's going to AA meetings. In other words, he's seeking to overcome the problem. In your estimation, would it be wise to let others know that your friend has this problem? What would spreading this around achieve? Would it be for good or ill?
And yet, there are busybodies out there who enjoy spreading around people's weaknesses. There's no thought or consideration to the fact that they're personal issues that the person might already be dealing with, or family issues that don't belong outside the family, or what-have-you. These people don't spread gossip around to help the people overcome, but to gloat over their weaknesses!
Remember when Ham exposed his father Noah's nakedness in Genesis 9:20-24? Symbolically, that's the very meaning of this passage. Ham saw a personal problem that his father was having and gossipped about it to his two brothers. But his two brothers covered up the problem. Why? Because it was important to give their father an opportunity to overcome his problem without having to endure the shame of having it gossipped about!
So, to get back to my example above, let's say that you're asked to give a job recommendation concerning your friend. You're specifically asked if he has a problem with alcohol. I believe Proverbs 11:13 would even include outright lying about your friend's problem - but only because you know he's doing his best to overcome it privately. Your friend doesn't need to endure the shame and the stigma of having it publicized, even to a prospective employer who only wants to know if they can rely on your friend not to jeopardize others at work.
As far as AchSteven's comments go, I wonder how he would interpret 1 Kings 22:19-23? God put a lying spirit in the mouth of the prophets in order to persuade Ahab to go and die in battle. But doesn't Hebrews 6:18 say it's impossible for God to lie? So, what, instead He lies by proxy?
I think the situation is a little more complex than AchSteven realizes.
Damon
To answer your question, yes, keeping a confidence can go so far as lying by omission or even lying outright. Let's give the following example. You have a friend who has a problem with alcohol. He knows he has a problem and he's going to AA meetings. In other words, he's seeking to overcome the problem. In your estimation, would it be wise to let others know that your friend has this problem? What would spreading this around achieve? Would it be for good or ill?
And yet, there are busybodies out there who enjoy spreading around people's weaknesses. There's no thought or consideration to the fact that they're personal issues that the person might already be dealing with, or family issues that don't belong outside the family, or what-have-you. These people don't spread gossip around to help the people overcome, but to gloat over their weaknesses!
Remember when Ham exposed his father Noah's nakedness in Genesis 9:20-24? Symbolically, that's the very meaning of this passage. Ham saw a personal problem that his father was having and gossipped about it to his two brothers. But his two brothers covered up the problem. Why? Because it was important to give their father an opportunity to overcome his problem without having to endure the shame of having it gossipped about!
So, to get back to my example above, let's say that you're asked to give a job recommendation concerning your friend. You're specifically asked if he has a problem with alcohol. I believe Proverbs 11:13 would even include outright lying about your friend's problem - but only because you know he's doing his best to overcome it privately. Your friend doesn't need to endure the shame and the stigma of having it publicized, even to a prospective employer who only wants to know if they can rely on your friend not to jeopardize others at work.
As far as AchSteven's comments go, I wonder how he would interpret 1 Kings 22:19-23? God put a lying spirit in the mouth of the prophets in order to persuade Ahab to go and die in battle. But doesn't Hebrews 6:18 say it's impossible for God to lie? So, what, instead He lies by proxy?
I think the situation is a little more complex than AchSteven realizes.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
but...but...but... what if he wants to be a pizza delivery guy, or a nuclear power plant technician, or a brain surgeon. Would you not want to protect other lives from chaos he could wreak if he relapses?
About the lying spirit in I Kings - so do you think God lies? More than that time? Like when he purposely hides the truth by hardening hearts?
About the lying spirit in I Kings - so do you think God lies? More than that time? Like when he purposely hides the truth by hardening hearts?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Well, to use your own situation as an example, what damage could be caused by not owning up to the fact that the institution you work for hasn't been doing what it's supposed to have been doing up til now? The potential for a certain amount of damage is there, as I'm sure you can see. And yet, if you were to tell the whole truth, all that would do is give the institution a reason to greatly resent the regulation, rather than honestly trying to stick to it from now on. In the same way, your hypothetical friend could relapse and some damage could result, to be sure...but would your friend have more of a reason to want to overcome his problem if you told the truth or if you covered his sin? If he agreed and made the commitment not to relapse if you covered his sin, what would be the best choice?
Does that make sense now?
As far as the concept that God can't lie, the whole point is that God can be trusted to keep His word. He's not a man who is carnal and untrustworthy. On the other hand, He won't allow His plans to be frustrated, and Ahab was trying to straddle the fence and frustrate God's desire for his repentance. He consulted with prophets of God while at the same time not repenting from his wickedness.
I believe that God can be trusted to keep His word, but beyond that I'm struggling to understand how He does things. If the people God deals with aren't carnal, at least to some degree (like King Ahab), I believe that there would be no need for Him to lie at all.
Other than that, I'm still not sure yet...
Damon
PS. The concept of God covering our sins, both in the OT as well as in the NT, is directly tied into this. Although our sins are washed away by Jesus' blood, why does He do that? Because we consciously agree to "go and sin no more," right?
That's my point.
Does that make sense now?
As far as the concept that God can't lie, the whole point is that God can be trusted to keep His word. He's not a man who is carnal and untrustworthy. On the other hand, He won't allow His plans to be frustrated, and Ahab was trying to straddle the fence and frustrate God's desire for his repentance. He consulted with prophets of God while at the same time not repenting from his wickedness.
I believe that God can be trusted to keep His word, but beyond that I'm struggling to understand how He does things. If the people God deals with aren't carnal, at least to some degree (like King Ahab), I believe that there would be no need for Him to lie at all.
Other than that, I'm still not sure yet...
Damon
PS. The concept of God covering our sins, both in the OT as well as in the NT, is directly tied into this. Although our sins are washed away by Jesus' blood, why does He do that? Because we consciously agree to "go and sin no more," right?
That's my point.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: