The holy lie or pious fraud in religions

[hermeneuticgirl]

**”Even though this man (Dionysus) be no God, as you say, still say that he is. Be guilty of a splendid fraud, declaring him the son of Semele, for this would make it seem that she was the mother of a god, and it would confer honour on all our race.” (Euripides Bacchae) **

In the Old Testament book of Joshua 2:4-6 (the Hebrew name for Jesus, interestingly), the
prostitute Rahab is praised for an act of lying. We read

And the woman [Rahab] took the two men and hid them and said thus: There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were; and it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark that the men went out; whither the men went I wot not; pursue after them quickly, for ye shall overtake them. But she had brought them up to the roof of the house and hid them with the stalks of flax

This was later picked up on in the New Testament in the book of Jesus’ brother at James 2: 25, where it is said that Rahab was righteous because of telling this lie in the service of God:
** Was not Rahab, the harlot, justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?.
**
The permission of lying under special circumstances would not separate the Hebrew and Christian bibles from other ancient spiritualities. It would actually put them all very much in line. The justification of lying hypothesis is very interesting. It resonates with much in spirituality … even shamanism … where the neophyte is taken in with ‘magic’ to attract their attention and then is taken to the Truth … and the understanding that what they initially through was magic was simply deception … and the recognition of how early they were deceived. Confucius, also, in the Analects, points out that
The Governor of She said to Confucius, ‘In our village we have an example of a straight person. When the father stole a sheep, the son gave evidence against him.’ Confucius answered, ‘In our village those who are straight are quite different. Fathers cover up for their sons, and sons cover up for their fathers. In such behaviour is straightness to be found as a matter of course.’ (13.18)

The Holy Lie also has a history of societal structuring intentions. For example, The the pious fraud or

noble lie is present in P**lato’s Republic in Book 2, Sections 414-7, where Plato says a functional

stratified society could be realized if they could convince the people of the lie that everyone from

different levels of society were created by God to exist in a certain level of society). ** This is also true

of the Code of Manu. As Roger Berkowitz says of the Manu based society in FRIEDRICH

NIETZSCHE, THE CODE OF MANU, AND THE ART OF LEGISLATION,

its division of society into four castes, each with its own particular obligations and rights, is a desired end because it reflects the natural order of society. “The order of castes,” Nietzsche writes, “the highest, the most dominant Gesetz, is only the sanction of a natural-order, naturallegal- positing of the first rank, over which no willfulness, no ‘modern idea’ has power.” It is nature, he insists, not Manu or the Brahmin legislators, that divides the predominantly intellectual from those who are predominantly physically or temperamentally strong, and both of these from the mediocre, who are extraordinary in neither intellect nor strength. The Indian caste system is an artifice, a Holy Lie—but it is a lie that serves natural end.

Similarly, we see the permission of lying in Islam. In the Pro-Muslim book The Spirit of Islam, Afif A. Tabbarah writes, concerning the mandates of Muhammed,
**Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: ‘He is not a false person who (through lies) settles concilliation among people, supports good or says what is good.
**
It is often supposed that lying is prohibited by the bible, but the situation is more complex than that. As we saw in the case of Rahab, it is permissible in special cases, if it is done in extreme circumstances in the service of God and his people. We see, for example,
Exodus 1: 18-20
And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men-children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives.
1 Kings 22: 21-22
And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him … I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him and prevail also; go forth and do so.
2 Kings 8:10
And Elisha said unto him, go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.

 

[Cluny]

What is your point, besides the one that makes it hard for you to find hats that fit?

 

[Cashue]

In the Old Testament book of .Joshua 2:4-6. …] the prostitute Rahab is praised for an act of lying. …] James 2: 25,. where it is said that Rahab was righteous because of telling this lie in the service of God:" Was not Rahab, the harlot, justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had them [sent]out another way?.]

Joshua neither condemns nor approves of the lies that Rahab told but simply reported them, there is not commentary in Joshua on God’s reaction to them; so it is inaccurate to say in a commentary on Joshua 2 that she was ‘praised for an act of lying’ here.

James does not say Rahab is declared righteous because of her lies but because of recieving and protecting the messengers. There is no direct mention as to whether God approved of what she said after they had left. There is no scriptural basis here to conclude that lying is " it is permissible in special cases".

**Exodus 1: 18-20 **
And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men-children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives.

In a similar vein, the Egyptian midwives personal decision to lie to protect the Israelite babies, is neither sanctioned nor approved, they were rewarded for their noble attempts to protect innocent lives. Whether God would have blessed more “honest” methods is irrelevant to the fact that these women did not worship the God of the Israelites and as such God judged them favorably for their motives and bravery that worked in harmony with his own purpose NOT necessarily for their methods.

1 Kings 22: 21-22
And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him … I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him and prevail also; go forth and do so.

Regarding Kings, first we have to note "God allows “an operation of error” to go to persons who prefer falsehood “that they may get to believing the lie” rather than the good news about Jesus Christ. (2Th 2:9-12)

"This principle is illustrated by what happened centuries earlier in the case of Israelite King Ahab. Lying prophets assured Ahab of success in war against Ramoth-gilead, while Jehovah’s prophet Micaiah foretold disaster. As revealed in vision to Micaiah, Jehovah allowed a spirit creature to become “a deceptive spirit” in the mouth of Ahab’s prophets.

That is to say, this spirit creature exercised his power upon them so that they spoke, not truth, but what they themselves wanted to say and what Ahab wanted to hear from them. Though forewarned, Ahab preferred to be fooled by their lies and paid for it with his life.—1Ki 22:1-38;

** 2 Kings 8:10 **
And Elisha said unto him, go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.** **

The words of Elisha to Hazael have been the subject of considerable conjecture. According to the margin of the Masoretic text, as well as the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, and 18 Hebrew manuscripts, the text reads: “Say to him, ‘You will,’” whereas the main body of the Masoretic text says, “Say, ‘You will not.’”

If the reading is taken that Hazael was told to tell Ben-hadad “‘You will positively revive,’” Elisha’s answer to Ben-hadad’s inquiry may have been in the form of a riddle, meaning that Ben-hadad’s sickness itself would not kill him but that he would nevertheless die (as he did, by the hand of Hazael). At any rate, Hazael verbally gave the king the first part of Elisha’s answer: “You will positively revive,” but the rest of the answer Hazael carried out in violent action.