Lying is ALWAYS a Sin: Resurrection Thread

[Pitcharan]

As a sidenote, please read the book of Judith. There you will see the account of a widow who saved her people by deceiption and lying to Holofernes. After gaining his trust, she killed him and saved Israel from the Assyrians. What does the Bible say about Judith and her actions:

Also read the book of Tobit wherein angel Raphael lied about his identity to Tobit and his son Tobias, while claiming to be their kinsman. It was done with no malicious intent whatsoever. The deciding factor that can condemn anyone for a sin is ‘sinful intent’ and it is true for all actions. Even in worldly jurisprudence the judge convicts a person of crime only after establishing criminal intent.

 

[catholictiger]

Yes, it was a misreading. Don’t sweat it, what I was trying to say is kind of awkward to explain.

that’s ok

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Also read the book of Tobit wherein angel Raphael lied about his identity to Tobit and his son Tobias, while claiming to be their kinsman. It was done with no malicious intent whatsoever. The bottom line that can condemn anyone for a sin is ‘sinful intent’ and it is true for all actions. Even in worldly jurisprudence the judge convicts a person of crime only after establishing criminal intent.

Aquinas addresses God rewarding lying in the Summa, I believe. He uses Rahab the harlot lying to protect the Jews as an example. I’ve given his explanation for such a thing elsewhere in the thread.

As for the book of Tobit, Tobit’s value is not in literal history but rather in conveying spiritual truths. Tobit is a novel. There are several historical anachronisms in it. But it conveys real spiritual truths, and that is why it is in the canon, not because the events depicted happened as literally presented (although perhaps the were based on a true story).

 

[Pitcharan]

… it is in the canon, not because the events depicted happened as literally presented (although perhaps the were based on a true story).

I don’t think that any book of the Bible contains events depicted that had actually happened as literally presented. Even truth has to be presented only after making it reader friendly and assimilable to all minds.

 

[jimmy]

Lying is not good. Your priority is never to lie.

And neither are nazi’s hunting Jews. If the choice comes down to telling a lie or allowing a man to die, it is better to tell the lie. Some people make a distinction between taking action and passively allowing something to happen. It isn’t your fault that the nazi’s killed a Jew you were hiding. OK, I get it. But the question is, what is more valuable, a true statement or a human life?

Generally lying is bad and you shouldn’t do it, but there are times when the rule must be broken or else it becomes oppressive of what it was meant to protect.

It’s kind of like these extreme libertarians who say that the govt shouldn’t help the people in natural disasters. When someones life is turned upside down and they have lost their home, their business and possibly family members they don’t care about your libertarian values. They don’t care about whether it appears to be socialist for the govt to help or whether it takes tax dollar. What matters is that they get back on their feet. Maybe the normal rule of life is more according to libertarian values and individualism, but there are times when that must change.

 

[LaSainte]

The concept of mental reservation has always seemed absurd to me. It changes nothing of the fact that you are deliberately deceiving someone.

Let’s try some:

“Of course you look great!”(for a two-dollar whore)
“That’s a great drawing!”(if it had been done by Coco the gorilla having an epileptic fit)
“You don’t look a day over 35!”(hundred)
“That was delicious!”(in a world where hot feces is haute cuisine)
“Nope, no Jews here, Mr. Hitler!”(and by here I mean within one one-thousandth of an inch of your face)

I mean seriously, people. Those are all lies. The question is, are any of them acceptable?

 

[Kay_Cee]

The concept of mental reservation has always seemed absurd to me. It changes nothing of the fact that you are deliberately deceiving someone.

Let’s try some:

“Of course you look great!”(for a two-dollar whore)
“That’s a great drawing!”(if it had been done by Coco the gorilla having an epileptic fit)
“You don’t look a day over 35!”(hundred)
“That was delicious!”(in a world where hot feces is haute cuisine)
“Nope, no Jews here, Mr. Hitler!”(and by here I mean within one one-thousandth of an inch of your face)

I mean seriously, people. Those are all lies. The question is, are any of them acceptable?

There is the letter of the law, and there is the spirit of the law. I seem to recall a certain Someone who broke the letter of the law concerning the Sabbath. And I seem to recall Him saying that the Sabbath was meant for man, not man for the Sabbath.

I also notice that nobody touched the point I made way back in post #7: " Is it always stealing to take someone else’s property? If it is, is it stealing to take away a sniper’s gun? If someone always has the right to know the truth, then doesn’t the same rule apply to the sniper’s gun, that he always has the right to his property? "

Let me ask you a question:*** Why*** does God have a commandment against lying? What is the point of it?

 

[jimmy]

There is the letter of the law, and there is the spirit of the law. I seem to recall a certain Someone who broke the letter of the law concerning the Sabbath. And I seem to recall Him saying that the Sabbath was meant for man, not man for the Sabbath.

I also notice that nobody touched the point I made way back in post #7: " Is it always stealing to take someone else’s property? If it is, is it stealing to take away a sniper’s gun? If someone always has the right to know the truth, then doesn’t the same rule apply to the sniper’s gun, that he always has the right to his property? "

Let me ask you a question:*** Why*** does God have a commandment against lying? What is the point of it?

Is bearing false witness the same as Lying? I am not sure that it is. I have taken it as closer to slander than simply lying.

In war, the question of rights goes out the window. We would generally say that a man has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But when it comes down to either killing the other soldier or dying yourself, you aren’t going to think about their rights. He has no right to have that rifle, because it is harmful to me and my fellow soldiers, so I will take it. He would probably think the exact opposite though. At that point it isn’t a question of right or wrong, it is one of survival.

 

[hannajomar]

There is the letter of the law, and there is the spirit of the law. I seem to recall a certain Someone who broke the letter of the law concerning the Sabbath. And I seem to recall Him saying that the Sabbath was meant for man, not man for the Sabbath.

I also notice that nobody touched the point I made way back in post #7: " Is it always stealing to take someone else’s property? If it is, is it stealing to take away a sniper’s gun? If someone always has the right to know the truth, then doesn’t the same rule apply to the sniper’s gun, that he always has the right to his property? "

I agree. It’s not always a sin to kill someone, so I don’t see how it can always be a sin to give a falsehood.

 

[jimmy]

The concept of mental reservation has always seemed absurd to me. It changes nothing of the fact that you are deliberately deceiving someone.

Let’s try some:

“Of course you look great!”(for a two-dollar whore)
“That’s a great drawing!”(if it had been done by Coco the gorilla having an epileptic fit)
“You don’t look a day over 35!”(hundred)
“That was delicious!”(in a world where hot feces is haute cuisine)
“Nope, no Jews here, Mr. Hitler!”(and by here I mean within one one-thousandth of an inch of your face)

I mean seriously, people. Those are all lies. The question is, are any of them acceptable?

My thoughts exactly. Those are all lies, so you might as well atleast make your lies good. You might as well make them convincing, rather than simply refusing to tell where the Jews are.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The concept of mental reservation has always seemed absurd to me. It changes nothing of the fact that you are deliberately deceiving someone.

Let’s try some:

“Of course you look great!”(for a two-dollar whore)
“That’s a great drawing!”(if it had been done by Coco the gorilla having an epileptic fit)
“You don’t look a day over 35!”(hundred)
“That was delicious!”(in a world where hot feces is haute cuisine)
“Nope, no Jews here, Mr. Hitler!”(and by here I mean within one one-thousandth of an inch of your face)

I mean seriously, people. Those are all lies. The question is, are any of them acceptable?

You didn’t read the article, did you? These are broad mental reservations, not narrow ones.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I don’t think that any book of the Bible contains events depicted that had actually happened as literally presented. Even truth has to be presented only after making it reader friendly and assimilable to all minds.

Yep.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

It’s kind of like these extreme libertarians who say that the govt shouldn’t help the people in natural disasters.

What? The government helping people isn’t a sin. Lying is, because it’s against natural law. What you’re saying is that to save lives the ends justify the means. It doesn’t work like that, in the “spirit” or “letter” of the law.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

What? The government helping people isn’t a sin. Lying is, because it’s against natural law. What you’re saying is that to save lives the ends justify the means. It doesn’t work like that, in the “spirit” or “letter” of the law.

In fact what we’re saying is that lying is either not intrinsically against the natural law, or that these things don’t count as lying (the distinction would mostly be a matter of semantics).

(Some) libertarians in such cases do in fact think that it’s wrong for the government to take money from its citizens to do such things, thinking that the duties of the government are limited to much more basic things, and hence think that it would be bad for the government to use citizen’s money for even such good causes. They would say “yes it’s a good cause, but the government has no business taking our money for anything but ____, and since this is not part of ____, it doesn’t matter that it’s a good cause, it’s not allowed.” Which is more or less along the lines of saying the ends don’t justify the means. Which is true, the disagreement comes in whether or not taking money from citizens to do anything but whatever they believe to be the functions of government is always evil. If so, claiming that we could do so to help people would be an ends justify the means sort of argument, and if not then it’d only be such an argument if taking the money was evil a particular case (such as taking all the possessions from a starving family) to help the victims.

We are not saying that good ends justify evil means. We are saying that means don’t appear to be evil in this case, though they may be in general terms - in much the same way that shooting someone in the head is not evil when that person is trying to kill you or others but is evil in the general case of shooting random people on the street.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

We are not saying that good ends justify evil means. We are saying that means don’t appear to be evil in this case, though they may be in general terms

In the natural law, lying is undoubtedly saying something you know is totally false to somebody in the effort to convince them that what you’re saying is true, because the point of speech is communication, and you are frustrating that end. Self-defense is a different issue. Why? Great question, actually. This is because we’re making the wrong comparison. Murder and killing is a distinction. When we kill somebody in self-defense, we’re not murdering them.

The same distinction is made between lying and deception. You can deceive somebody, just like you can kill somebody. But you cannot lie to somebody, just like you cannot murder somebody.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

(Some) libertarians in such cases do in fact think that it’s wrong for the government to take money from its citizens to do such things, thinking that the duties of the government are limited to much more basic things, and hence think that it would be bad for the government to use citizen’s money for even such good causes. They would say “yes it’s a good cause, but the government has no business taking our money for anything but ____, and since this is not part of ____, it doesn’t matter that it’s a good cause, it’s not allowed.”

They would be wrong. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the government using taxes for good causes. It is not against natural law. It doesn’t matter what they think.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Here’s a good illustration between the lying vs. self-defense scenario. This is just to point out that even though death is worse than lying that doesn’t mean both are okay in the same circumstance.

Killing in self-defense is not intrinsically wrong. Lying is.

There is nothing odd in this. If you think there is, I suspect that’s because killing under any circumstances is, of course, a big deal, highly consequential, etc., while lying often is neither. But that is by itself irrelevant to the moral character of each act. (Unless you’re a consequentialist, in which case you are begging the question against the natural law view.)

-Dr. Feser.

It’s a simple natural law distinction.

 

[jimmy]

Here’s a good illustration between the lying vs. self-defense scenario. This is just to point out that even though death is worse than lying that doesn’t mean both are okay in the same circumstance.

Killing in self-defense is not intrinsically wrong. Lying is.

There is nothing odd in this. If you think there is, I suspect that’s because killing under any circumstances is, of course, a big deal, highly consequential, etc., while lying often is neither. But that is by itself irrelevant to the moral character of each act. (Unless you’re a consequentialist, in which case you are begging the question against the natural law view.)

-Dr. Feser.

It’s a simple natural law distinction.

I cant agree. Life is more important than some meaningless fact. When I see people make ridiculous statements like this I can see how nietzsche said that love is beyond good and evil. Your principles mean more than people. A meaningless fact (whether there are Jews hiding in your house) means more than the life of the Jew, and you would trade his life for the fact. So I can trust a nihilist to protect me (assuming i am the jew) before I can trust a Christian who supposedly has the moral imperative to love their neighbor.

I can kill to save my life, but I can’t lie to save my life from the same threat. So if my life is threatened the first thing I should do is kill, because it is fine to kill. Talk about messed up priorities.

I want to see the natural law argument that says lying is always bad. I want to see the argument that places greater emphasis on facts than on life.

 

[jimmy]

What? The government helping people isn’t a sin. Lying is, because it’s against natural law. What you’re saying is that to save lives the ends justify the means. It doesn’t work like that, in the “spirit” or “letter” of the law.

No, what I said is that lying isn’t always wrong. It is sometimes the right thing to do.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I cant agree. Life is more important than some meaningless fact. When I see people make ridiculous statements like this I can see how nietzsche said that love is beyond good and evil. Your principles mean more than people. A meaningless fact (whether there are Jews hiding in your house) means more than the life of the Jew, and you would trade his life for the fact. So I can trust a nihilist to protect me (assuming i am the jew) before I can trust a Christian who supposedly has the moral imperative to love their neighbor.

I can kill to save my life, but I can’t lie to save my life from the same threat. So if my life is threatened the first thing I should do is kill, because it is fine to kill. Talk about messed up priorities.

I want to see the natural law argument that says lying is always bad. I want to see the argument that places greater emphasis on facts than on life.

This is an argument from emotion, and it means nothing. What you’re saying is, "I don’t like the conclusion, so I don’t agree. There really isn’t an “argument”. Lying is saying something you know to be false with the intention of making somebody else believe it is true. The natural end of speech is communication. Lying is a disruption of that end. Therefore, lying is wrong. You can’t make exceptions just because the conclusion is uncomfortable, but honestly that seems to be everybody’s argument.

Look, nobody’s view here is heretical, and frankly this is a very small issue so I won’t condemn anybody here for having a different view. But I’m just stating the valid conclusions from the premises.