Lying is OK sometimes...?

[ignatius777]

You’re right. I don’t have to misrepresent anything to a private nazi hunter. But your analogy won’t work if I tell a nazi acting under authority of law, “the Jew is here, now go away”. We’ll all be shot.

In your original presentation of the scenario you did not note the nazi was in authority. According to your rationale then they are entitled to the truth as the authority no?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

In your original presentation of the scenario you did not note the nazi was in authority. According to your rationale then they are entitled to the truth as the authority no?

I assumed we were talking about Nazi Germany, Occupied Europe, or Vichy France. The scenario wouldn’t make any sense otherwise, especially since Ann Frank was mentioned several times.

I’m going to have to go way out on a limb here and baldly assert that neither the nazi puppet regimes in occupied Europe nor Vichy France were legitimate, and that in any event, in this context, no authority has the right to a truthful answer to the question “where are your Jews?”.

 

[comrade1789]

Of course it is just as murder is a crime whether pre meditated or accidental just the punishment is different. Lying to save another human being is much different then lying to gain some personal advantage.

I think in this instance, when Nazis are asking you if you are hiding any Jews and in fact you are, and you know that silence is just as much an admission of having Jews in your house as out right telling them that you are hiding them, then in fact it would be NOT LYING which would be the sin, for otherwise you are handing innocent life over to be killed.

Then again, we have to define Lying. I am re-hashing my old arguments from two months ago regarding this very issue, but it needs to be said. Deceiving an enemy is not lying, it is a legitimate tactic of warfare, with plenty of Biblical precedent. In wartime, deception is a tactic, a defence, a tool and a weapon. The OT is full of stories of Godly men and women who deployed deception for the greater good. So perhaps we need to clarify what constitutes lying and what constitutes a just tactic of deception. For in cases of dealing with an enemy, whether a nation, a gang or an armed burglar, our lie is not, as the CCC states, the “The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error,” but the deliberate intention of leading an ENEMY into error.
In Exodus 1 we have a Nazi-type scenario where Pharoah wanted the Hebrew babies to be killed and the midwives refused to kill them. When Pharoaoh confronted them, the midwives lied and said that the babies were born before they could get there. So we read in Exodus 1:20-21 “Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.”

So either A. Not all lying is sin. B. All lying is sin and what is said to deceive the enemy in times of war and danger is not a lie at all but a weapon of deception to deceive not a neighbor but an enemy, such as in the case in Exodus, or C. All lying is sin, even if only venial, and we have a God who would reward venial sins. If there are other scenarios please let me know. I still stick with B.

I am saying that lies are wrong, but deception is not always a lie as some are understanding it, because at times it is an acceptable tactic. God would not command anyone to sin, venial or otherwise, would he? In Joshua Chapter 6 Rahab hid the spies and then “lied” to the rulers to protect their lives. In Hebrews 11:31 we read not the Rahab lied, not that she was causing error or confusion, but that “by faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.” James 2:25 goes so far to ask “likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?” The wages of sin is death, yet the practice of deception in this case was not only justified, but also led to both peace and faith…How can this be? Obviously the CCC is clear, but again, our understanding of it may need some assistance. I see no contradiction when we realize that maybe all lies as you understand them to be are sins, but only if we accept that not all practices of deception should constitute lying. Otherwise we have some big theological problems to deal with here. Like, is God a liar then? Or are we to believe like the Muslims, that God is not bound by His own moral law? God himself uses deception as a tactic in 1 Samuel 16:2 when he had samuel bring a heifer as an offering to Bethlehem so Saul wouldn’t suspect that Samuel’s real reason for going was to anoint David as King. So here is God lying, for the CCC states “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error,” which was exactly God’s intent. So now we have to understand error as an enemy of righteousness, not as wrong conclusions, and we have to understand lying as separate from tactical deception.

 

[comrade1789]

And finally Back to the link to the THIS ROCK article catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0809fea3.asp:

"I referred earlier to the difficulty of conceptualizing a perfect definition of lying that might reveal a solution to our dilemma. The magisterium of the Church has not endorsed any such definition, but it recently came very close to taking a small step in that direction. Over the past hundred years there has been a growing movement among moral theologians to tweak the definition of lying as follows: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.” This very sentence, in fact, is taken from the initial edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2483, 1994 edition).
When the Catechism was first published in French in 1994, and translated into other languages from the French, it contained the sentence quoted above, and so there was some speculation that the Holy See had finally decided to throw at least a modicum of magisterial weight behind this solution to our dilemma. This very precise definition, with its inclusion of the right to know, enables us to handle lying and falsehood in a manner very similar to the way we handle murder and killing. Through a person’s intention to use particular knowledge for an evil end, that person would presumably forfeit his right to know. Thus it would be morally acceptable to speak a falsehood to the murderous thugs. But we would no more call this “lying” than we would call an act of self-defense “murder.”

Alas, the matter is not so easily resolved. For, as it turns out, when the official Latin text of the Catechism was released in 1997 after a process of revision, the right to know was dropped. The operative sentence now reads simply: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” Of course, the Catechism is intended as a basic compendium of Catholic doctrine, assembled with due ecclesiastical care, and not as a collection of definitive infallible pronouncements permanently settling every question on every topic it covers. In other words, the change in definition does not mean the original formulation was wrong. But it does mean that the editors of the Catechism were not prepared to endorse it in an official Catholic reference work. In the end, then, the current Catechism does not directly address our problem. "

 

[ignatius777]

I think in this instance, when Nazis are asking you if you are hiding any Jews and in fact you are, and you know that silence is just as much an admission of having Jews in your house as out right telling them that you are hiding them, then in fact it would be NOT LYING which would be the sin, for otherwise you are handing innocent life over to be killed.

Then again, we have to define Lying. I am re-hashing my old arguments from two months ago regarding this very issue, but it needs to be said. Deceiving an enemy is not lying, it is a legitimate tactic of warfare, with plenty of Biblical precedent. In wartime, deception is a tactic, a defence, a tool and a weapon. The OT is full of stories of Godly men and women who deployed deception for the greater good. So perhaps we need to clarify what constitutes lying and what constitutes a just tactic of deception. For in cases of dealing with an enemy, whether a nation, a gang or an armed burglar, our lie is not, as the CCC states, the “The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error,” but the deliberate intention of leading an ENEMY into error.
In Exodus 1 we have a Nazi-type scenario where Pharoah wanted the Hebrew babies to be killed and the midwives refused to kill them. When Pharoaoh confronted them, the midwives lied and said that the babies were born before they could get there. So we read in Exodus 1:20-21 “Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.”

So either A. Not all lying is sin. B. All lying is sin and what is said to deceive the enemy in times of war and danger is not a lie at all but a weapon of deception to deceive not a neighbor but an enemy, such as in the case in Exodus, or C. All lying is sin, even if only venial, and we have a God who would reward venial sins. If there are other scenarios please let me know. I still stick with B.

I am saying that lies are wrong, but deception is not always a lie as some are understanding it, because at times it is an acceptable tactic. God would not command anyone to sin, venial or otherwise, would he? In Joshua Chapter 6 Rahab hid the spies and then “lied” to the rulers to protect their lives. In Hebrews 11:31 we read not the Rahab lied, not that she was causing error or confusion, but that “by faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.” James 2:25 goes so far to ask “likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?” The wages of sin is death, yet the practice of deception in this case was not only justified, but also led to both peace and faith…How can this be? Obviously the CCC is clear, but again, our understanding of it may need some assistance. I see no contradiction when we realize that maybe all lies as you understand them to be are sins, but only if we accept that not all practices of deception should constitute lying. Otherwise we have some big theological problems to deal with here. Like, is God a liar then? Or are we to believe like the Muslims, that God is not bound by His own moral law? God himself uses deception as a tactic in 1 Samuel 16:2 when he had samuel bring a heifer as an offering to Bethlehem so Saul wouldn’t suspect that Samuel’s real reason for going was to anoint David as King. So here is God lying, for the CCC states “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error,” which was exactly God’s intent. So now we have to understand error as an enemy of righteousness, not as wrong conclusions, and we have to understand lying as separate from tactical deception.

Let me be clear in this instance I have no problem dealing with whatever punishment God decided to dole out to me for lying to protect innocent life. My belief that a lie is a lie doesnt not change the fact that I would do it if I believed it was morally proper. Besides God gave us the gift of the sacrament of reconcilliation. Amen

 

[ignatius777]

I assumed we were talking about Nazi Germany, Occupied Europe, or Vichy France. The scenario wouldn’t make any sense otherwise, especially since Ann Frank was mentioned several times.

I’m going to have to go way out on a limb here and baldly assert that neither the nazi puppet regimes in occupied Europe nor Vichy France were legitimate, and that in any event, in this context, no authority has the right to a truthful answer to the question “where are your Jews?”.

Its all silliness anyway since a lie is a lie. No matter how justified you believe it is to lie its still that a lie. Theres no getting around it.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Its all silliness anyway since a lie is a lie. No matter how justified you believe it is to lie its still that a lie. Theres no getting around it.

That’s very noble of you to accept just punishment from God for saving Jews.

Deceiving the Nazis to stop them from killing Ann Frank is not a lie and not a sin. Get over it.

 

[ignatius777]

That’s very noble of you to accept just punishment from God for saving Jews.

Deceiving the Nazis to stop them from killing Ann Frank is not a lie and not a sin. Get over it.

There is no need to be rude. Its not my fault that a lie is a lie and that a lie is a sin. No offense but your declaring something doesnt make it so. Maybe you need to get over yourself?!

 

[VonDerTann]

Hi.I’m gonna weigh in here.

I “got into it” a few weeks back on this forum over whether a lie is always sinful. I will recount the same answer I gave then: No, some lies are not sinful. Some thoughts:

1. I suppose it depends on how you define “lying,” since some might argue that any deception is a lie, and/or that any deception is a distortion of the truth…and hence sinful.
2. The problem, as I posited weeks back and has been picked up there, is that the view that “all deceptions are sins” assumes the listener is always entitled to the truth. One can conceive of many scenarios where the listener is not entitled to the truth (“Nazis at the door asking if a jew is there” is but one; “drunk, armed stalking ex-boyfriend of my 18 year old daughter, at my door, asking if she’s home when she is” is another).
3. There is, to my knowledge, simply no moral authority – the CCC; a pope speaking ex cathedra, etc. - who/which has ever unilaterally declared, “all lying is sinful,” or “all deceit is sinful.” By negative implication, some deceipt is NOT sinful, and.or is morally acceptable. Examples are legion. For example, police lie to suspects all the time, to obtain confessions. They say, “we have your fingerprints on the knife, so confess to the stabbing!” when they do not have any fingerprints. Moreover, their purpose is not to deceive (or at least it is not the main end they seek)…instead, what they really seek is the truth itself.

IMHO, “all lying is always sinful” is simply a view for people looking for moral absolutes in life, all the time. There are moral absolutes, but “all deceit is always a sin” IMHO is not among them, and no one can cite any authority otherwise.

Moreover, God gave us brains to use them. IMHO, anbond who really, truly beleies that I sin when I tell the Gestapo “nope, no jews here!” (when they are there) simply cannot be reasoned with.

-VdT

 

[ignatius777]

Hi.I’m gonna weigh in here.

I “got into it” a few weeks back on this forum over whether a lie is always sinful. I will recount the same answer I gave then: No, some lies are not sinful. Some thoughts:

1. I suppose it depends on how you define “lying,” since some might argue that any deception is a lie, and/or that any deception is a distortion of the truth…and hence sinful.
2. The problem, as I posited weeks back and has been picked up there, is that the view that “all deceptions are sins” assumes the listener is always entitled to the truth. One can conceive of many scenarios where the listener is not entitled to the truth (“Nazis at the door asking if a jew is there” is but one; “drunk, armed stalking ex-boyfriend of my 18 year old daughter, at my door, asking if she’s home when she is” is another).
3. There is, to my knowledge, simply no moral authority – the CCC; a pope speaking ex cathedra, etc. - who/which has ever unilaterally declared, “all lying is sinful,” or “all deceit is sinful.” By negative implication, some deceipt is NOT sinful, and.or is morally acceptable. Examples are legion. For example, police lie to suspects all the time, to obtain confessions. They say, “we have your fingerprints on the knife, so confess to the stabbing!” when they do not have any fingerprints. Moreover, their purpose is not to deceive (or at least it is not the main end they seek)…instead, what they really seek is the truth itself.

IMHO, “all lying is always sinful” is simply a view for people looking for moral absolutes in life, all the time. There are moral absolutes, but “all deceit is always a sin” IMHO is not among them, and no one can cite any authority otherwise.

Moreover, God gave us brains to use them. IMHO, anbond who really, truly beleies that I sin when I tell the Gestapo “nope, no jews here!” (when they are there) simply cannot be reasoned with.

-VdT

Its difficult to reason with a person who hasnt read the entirety of what another person wrote.

A lie is a lie. The topic of the post is is it ok to lie sometimes. Having a morally acceptable reason to lie does not change the fact that a lie is a lie. No one here disagress that telling a lie to save a life is an improper thing to do.

I am continually amazed at how many people who fancy themselves intellectuals cant decipher one simple concept from another.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

…

I am continually amazed at how many people who fancy themselves intellectuals cant decipher one simple concept from another.

Argument from personal incredulity is faulty reasoning and, here, is an ad hom as well.

Are you also claiming that God wants to you sin by lying to the Jew hunting nazis or informing the stalker-boyfriend of the whereabouts of your daughter?

As you say, “yes or no”.

 

[ignatius777]

Argument from personal incredulity is faulty reasoning and, here, is an ad hom as well.

Are you also claiming that God wants to you sin by lying to the Jew hunting nazis or informing the stalker-boyfriend of the whereabouts of your daughter?

As you say, “yes or no”.

My response to another poster was a result of my frustration at what I perceived as an ad hominem attack from that poster. It was improper on my part.

“No” I dont believe God wants us to sin but He knows we do sin and we can justify our sin and I would sin to save the jew. As to my daughter and a stalker boyfriend, lying would not be the sin I would be guilty of in that circumstance. And make no mistake if my daugther ever has a stalker boyfriend or abusive husband I WILL sin and I will GLADLY take whatever punishment is coming my way.

 

[Gift_from_God]

Lying is always a sin. Its just a question if its grave or venial.

Joking is not captured under lying.

Well, if you lie to protect your children from being attacked by someone, I highly doubt that that would be a sin.

 

[ignatius777]

Well, if you lie to protect your children from being attacked by someone, I highly doubt that that would be a sin.

Is someone still trying to equate justifcation of an act for approval of that act? It doesnt wash

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Is someone still trying to equate justifcation of an act for approval of that act? It doesnt wash

Yes, my friend, we’re still trying to convince you that not all misdirections are sins.

Do it for the chil’run.

 

[ignatius777]

Yes, my friend, we’re still trying to convince you that not all misdirections are sins.

Do it for the chil’run.

We are calling them “misdirections” now are we? LOL It sounds like we gave someone bad directons to their destination. Look, this is very simple and it has to be because I am the stupidest person you have ever encountered. Justifying an action doesnt mean it isnt a lie, a misdirection or a sin. But that also doesnt mean that sinning in our nazi/jew scenario isnt an appropriate thing to do, but its still a sin. Sorry. Finding a good enough reason to do something doesnt change what is thats just something people need to accept. I fully accept that I would sin to save the life of the jew in our scenario why is that so hard for people to accept?

You come up with some hilarious stuff. Werent you also the one to come up with verso-matic? LOL

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

We are calling them “misdirections” now are we? LOL It sounds like we gave someone bad directons to their destination. Look, this is very simple and it has to be because I am the stupidest person you have ever encountered. Justifying an action doesnt mean it isnt a lie, a misdirection or a sin. But that also doesnt mean that sinning in our nazi/jew scenario isnt an appropriate thing to do, but its still a sin. Sorry. Finding a good enough reason to do something doesnt change what is thats just something people need to accept. I fully accept that I would sin to save the life of the jew in our scenario why is that so hard for people to accept?

You come up with some hilarious stuff. Werent you also the one to come up with verso-matic? LOL

That was me. Its a hallmark on any nondenominational forum, where they throw verses at each other like machine gun fire (or like they do here with the CCC).

So last week I was heads up in a texas holdem game and on the river I held a 9-2 offsuit that connected with nothing on the board. So I check raised my best friend and told him straight to his face not to call the raise unless he could beat Aces Over. Swore upon all that is holy that I had him beat. But it was a stone cold lie — total misrepresentation. A fraud. Blatant falsehood. Not even close to the TRVTH. So he thought it over and laid down his hand. And I showed him my trash and taunted him for being bluffed out of $20.

Did I sin?

 

[ignatius777]

That was me. Its a hallmark on any nondenominational forum, where they throw verses at each other like machine gun fire (or like they do here with the CCC).

So last week I was heads up in a texas holdem game and on the river I held a 9-2 offsuit that connected with nothing on the board. So I check raised my best friend and told him straight to his face not to call the raise unless he could beat Aces Over. Swore upon all that is holy that I had him beat. But it was a stone cold lie — total misrepresentation. A fraud. Blatant falsehood. Not even close to the TRVTH. So he thought it over and laid down his hand. And I showed him my trash and taunted him for being bluffed out of $20.

Did I sin?

Of course you did and you know that. The difference is all parties enter the competition knowing deception is a part of the game. You could have won that hand though without directly telling a lie…you could have out bid him couldnt you?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Of course you did and you know that. The difference is all parties enter the competition knowing deception is a part of the game. You could have won that hand though without directly telling a lie…you could have out bid him couldnt you?

No, I had to willfully defraud him into surrendering a winning hand. Table stakes game, a player’s investment is protected in that he can’t be raised out of a hand.

If I don’t confess and make reparations, is my soul in jeopardy?

 

[ignatius777]

No, I had to willfully defraud him into surrendering a winning hand. Table stakes game, a player’s investment is protected in that he can’t be raised out of a hand.

If I don’t confess and make reparations, is my soul in jeopardy?

He couldnt fold?

I have no idea if your soul is in jeopardy. But I can say that if the loction of your souls eternal resting place hinges on this example then you have lived a very exemplary life my friend