There is a school of belief within Christiandom that holds the view that Jesus dispensed with ALL the commandments of the old testament (OT) and replaced it with one single principal law, namely, the injunction to love your neighbour as yourself. Let us, arguendo, concent with this view, if only to put this principle through its paces.

Supposing you live in a country where there is habitual civil unrest, say Nigeria. And that you are a Christian living in a region in Nigeria of mixed Christian and Muslim population. And that you have good relations with your muslim neighbours and are friendly with them. During one of these episode of civil unrest, a "christian" mob are look for muslims to lynch and kill. Your muslim neighbours are hiding in a place known only to you.

The "Christian" mob approach you asking for the whereabouts of your neighbours. What would you do?

1) Because you love you neighbours, are you going to tell a lie to the mob, thus saving their lives?

2) Tell the truth and reveal their hiding place, thus guaranteeing the certain death of you neighbours?

huxley:

There is a school of belief within Christiandom that holds the view that Jesus dispensed with ALL the commandments of the old testament (OT) and replaced it with one single principal law, namely, the injunction to love your neighbour as yourself. Let us, arguendo, concent with this view, if only to put this principle through its paces.

Supposing you live in a country where there is habitual civil unrest, say Nigeria. And that you are a Christian living in a region in Nigeria of mixed Christian and Muslim population. And that you have good relations with your muslim neighbours and are friendly with them. During one of these episode of civil unrest, a "christian" mob are look for muslims to lynch and kill. Your muslim neighbours are hiding in a place known only to you.

The "Christian" mob approach you asking for the whereabouts of your neighbours. What would you do?

1) Because you love you neighbours, are you going to tell a lie to the mob, thus saving their lives?

2) Tell the truth and reveal their hiding place, thus guaranteeing the certain death of you neighbours?

@ Huxley,
You just set a double edged trap for nairaland christians,

Accept the first option and you will be seeing as a fake christian who can not stand on the word of God in time of trouble, or
Accept the second one and you will be seeing as a christian murderer who kills his neighbours because of his religious belief.

Oya over to you nairaland christians.

It's a stupid question. I wouldn't even call it a double edged sword.

The answer is 1.

2 ends up in murder. It doesn't matter wether they are Muslims or not - murder is forbidden.
The 1st option does not see you as a fake Christian - it shows you as a real Christian.

Bastage:

It's a stupid question. I wouldn't even call it a double edged sword.

The answer is 1.

2 ends up in murder. It doesn't matter wether they are Muslims or not - murder is forbidden.
The 1st option does not see you as a fake Christian - it shows you as a real Christian.

Is lie not also part of the 10 commandments ? is it not forbidin as well ?

No. The 9th Commandment is not about lying as many misinterpret it to be.
Do Not Bear False Witness refers to ancient Hebrew law cases. It does not relate to the general telling of untruths.

Even atheists agree on this point:

http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/commandment09.htm

Then there is the question of just what “bearing false witness” is supposed to entail. It seems as though it might have been originally intended to prohibit lying in a court of law. For the ancient Hebrews, anyone caught lying during their testimony could be forced to submit to whatever punishment would have been imposed upon the accused — even including death. It must be remembered that the legal system of the time didn’t include a position of official state prosecutor. In effect, anyone coming forward to accuse someone of a crime and “bear witness” against them served as prosecutor for the people.

But anyway, in this case the pros would far outweigh the cons and there is no problem with keeping the truth from a bloodthirsty mob.

Does Christian theology not have an injunction against deliberate telling of falsehoods (ie being dishonest)? Is it conceivable that dishonesty would not have been frown upon in OT times as well as NT times?

Quite simply no.

Read the link, Huxley.

You're an atheist and that is an atheist website.


In this case, even if a general untruth were a sin, a Christian would be making a sacrifice and would probably get away with it. He would be making a sacrifice - committing a sin to save dozens of others from committing sins. That's if you believe that telling lies in this sort of scenario is banned in the Bible in the first place (which it isn't).

Actually, let me requalify that last sentence.

You could probably find something in the Judaic tribal book (the OT) if you look hard enough. I've got to admit, I'm unaware of it though if it exists.

But the NT does not mention it as far as I know and judging from the actions of Christ, breaking a law for a good deed isn't frowned upon - ie: he worked on the Sabbath.

Really a stupid question.

I'd simply answer their question with a question:

"And based on what evidence are u sure I know of their whereabouts?"

Their response:
"So, so and so said he saw u talking to them before they disappeared."

my response:

"And so,, does that prove anything. Please I have no time for all this.And besides, how can u call urselves Christians and be nvolved in this?"

Their response:
"WHAAAAAAT?, Everybody, lynch him,Kill him!!!!"

my response:

Ben Johnson, Carl lewis, Linford Christie, Maurice Green, etc.

Before I address the issue of the post from the atheist website, allow me to show you what the NT says about liars. Turn to 1 Timothy 1: 8-10;

8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Read the passage again. I'd say it's very ambiguous.

It doesn't say that lying is a sin. It may classify liars in with the bad but it doesn't really specify what a liar is. It could be referring to people who continually tell lies for evil means rather than someone who tells one lie for good.

but we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully

Would someone telling a mob where to find victims be using it lawfully?

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient

Wouldn't it be a righteous man who refused to tell the mob?

and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine

Again, wouldn't it be against sound doctrine to aid others in murder?

That said, I'm going to go and have a look at the Latin and Greek. Sometimes words like "liars" have a deeper meaning or a different context.

The word in Latin is "mendacibus".

This refers to a habitual liar.

Not what you would be in the example given.

The Greek word is "yeustai". This translates as "false swearers".

Bastage:

The word in Latin is "mendacibus".

This refers to a habitual liar.

Not what you would be in the example given.

The Greek word is "yeustai". This translates as "false swearers".

Let's look at another verse, namely Revelation 21: 8,

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

What makes one a murderer or a whoremonger or a sorcerer or an idolater or a liar? Is it habitually engaging in this activities? Or can one act of engaging in one of these acts make you guilty of the act?

So kil you deliberately kill one person, you are not a murderer until you engage in the habitual killing of people?

Sometimes you seem purposefully pedantic, Huxley.

Use your common sense.

If you're in a conversation with Charles, David walks by and Charles turns to you and says "That guy's a liar", he's referring to his character.
People don't generally call other people "liars" unless they are personally involved in the lie or if the guy they're accusing is a habitual liar.

I doubt there is a single person on this planet who has never told a lie. Is every single person a liar in the sense of the word as it is usually used? Of course not.
Take the word in the context it is meant and stop acting like an idiot.

Bastage:

Sometimes you seem purposefully pedantic, Huxley.

Use your common sense.

If you're in a conversation with Charles, David walks by and Charles turns to you and says "That guy's a liar", he's referring to his character.
People don't generally call other people "liars" unless they are personally involved in the lie or if the guy they're accusing is a habitual liar.

I doubt there is a single person on this planet who has never told a lie. Is every single person a liar in the sense of the word as it is usually used? Of course not.
Take the word in the context it is meant and stop acting like an idiot.

OK, let us say you are generally a very honest individual who unfortunately finds yourself in a tough legal corner and can only squirm out of it by lying. And supposing your lie is later discovered. Do you think you could be charge with perjury?

Can I refer you to this story for an example of what I mean: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7967982.stm

Bastage,

Your perspective on this matter suggests there must be some hierarchy of sins, with things like lying being at the bottom and murder right at the top.  The fact that people tell all sorts of lies daily does not mean that it is not condemn by the bible.  It is catagorically condemned by the bible in no  less than 20 places.  In fact, there is more condemnation of lying than other sins like adultery, murder, etc.

Don't talk crap.

Murder is not the same as a lie in any book.

I've also pointed out that it refers to habitual lying.

Which part of that do you not understand?

Bastage:

Don't talk crap.

Murder is not the same as a lie in any book.

I've also pointed out that it refers to habitual lying.

Which part of that do you not understand?

As far as I know, Christianity has no concept of the hierarchy of sins. At least, that concept cannot be justified biblically. It is a concept civil and secular authorities understand and uphold but NOT christianity.

Can you show me where in Christian doctrine murder is consider a more egregious sin than lying?

huxley:

As far as I know, Christianity has no concept of the hierarchy of sins.  At least, that concept cannot be justified biblically.

Actually it does.

Matthew 12:31-32 "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, netiher in this world, neither in the world to come."

John gives this quote. It's pretty ambiguous but the one thing it does make clear is that there are two types of sin - those that lead to death and those that don't:

John 5:16 If you see a Christian brother or sister sinning in a way that does not lead to death, you should pray, and God will give that person life. But there is a sin that leads to death, and I am not saying you should pray for those who commit it.

According to popular teaching though, Pride is the worst as it is the foundation for all other sins - including the one above.


You will also find in the Bible, many instances where different sins have different consequences.
As you know, I'm no fan of the OT, but if you take a look you will see many times where the god gets riled up and metes out different punishments for different sins. Logically, that points to an order of severity. The fact that the Bible states that there is judgement also points to a differing scale.

One way to look at sinning is this:

There are 3 people with 3 panes of glass.
The first drops it on the floor and smashes it completely.
The second bangs his against a wall and breaks off half.
The third scrapes against a table and breaks off a small piece of the corner.

The fact is that all 3 panes of glass are broken. But there are degrees to which it is broken.

Do you love your neighbour??

Do you love your neighbour as you love yourself??

If yes, please explain how in detail?!

If not!? then I'm afraid your goin to hell.

As opposed to the School for Retards, where you are going.

All I asked were a couple simple questions, no need to be an ass.

I'm just tryin to get things into perspective.

Actually, you were the ass with your peurile statement about going to Hell. Just trying to get things into perspective by taking a little jab at Christianity, huh?

Go and whine about how badly mistreated you are somewhere else. Unless you bring something to the table, calling you a retard is entirely justified.

Typical you!! No need indulge you as that would be a waste of my time not to talk of being totally unproductive.

Now if you are done being rude, could you please explain to us what the difference is between loving/liking your neighbour and Loving them as you do yourself. Thats all I'm curious to find out. I have watched you try to differenciate between the sin of lying and murder _{(but thats not the issue now)} so just answer the simple question and I'd be on my way.


By the way, how do you come off defending christianity with such a foul mouth?! _{Just curious.}