Posted on 06/04/2016 9:41:54 AM PDT by Salvation
Actually, Anne Frank’s parent put out they were going to Switzerland, not France. It bought them several years of safety that little lie.
I just finished reading Miep Gies’s splendid memoir about the Frank family. Miep was one of five people who hid the two families (and one man)in the annex behind the warehouse of Otto Frank’s spice importing business.
Miep, et al, had no ready lie when confronted over the barrel of a Luger held by a Nazi who had suddenly showed up in their offices. No ready lie could have held because it was obvious that they had hid the families. All, with the exception of Miep, were dragged off to prison. One was released because of bad health, one escaped. Gies survived the ordeal because the arresting officer was Viennese as was Miep.
That’s apparently called Kismet which sometimes works in place of hopeless falsehoods.
it is a lie and that, as a lie, it is intrinsically wrong.
The author is either ignorant of Scripture, or presumes to be superior to it. The reason something like lying is forbidden is because of it being contrary to fundamental law. Thus while it was wrong to work on the Sabbath, since part of the intent of the Law is to save innocent lives, therefore the Lord justified pulling an ox out of a pit (Lk. 14:5) and healing on the Sabbath.
And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. (Mark 3:4) And thus some things, such as idolatry, adultery, homosexual relations, are unconditionally wrong, while killing (or heterosexual relations are only conditionally wrong (as murder or outside marriage, respectively).
And thus the Lord blessed those who lied to save infants:
And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. 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. (Exodus 1:16-19)
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. (Exodus 1:20-21)
And in an account that parallels the example of the OP, Rahab lied to save the souls of Joshua's scouts, but was saved:
And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they be come to search out all the country. And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were: (Joshua 2:3-4)
And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the Lord: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent. (Joshua 6:17)
If she had not both hid the messengers and lied about it, then they likely would be captured and Rahab would have been killed with the conquerors.
(Yet RC scholarship relegates Joshua's conquests to being folk tales.)
Of course the danger is that once you allow an exception based upon the fundamental principle behind it then this can be abused to sanction doing what is not consistent with that principal. While healing on the sabbath is allowed, gathering sticks for personal use work was not, although if this was done due to dire need for fire or to help (good deeds) the lost then it would be. "Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days." (Matthew 12:12) But to tell the truth when that would clearly endanger the innocent, as in the above cases, would be contrary to the intent of the law, which Christians are to fulfil:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:4)
Excellent comments
Wrong analysis.
Little white lies told simply to avoid getting in trouble are told for selfish reasons. Even those told to avoid giving offense.
Consider the classical: does this make my butt look big issue ... If you lie then she may buy a dress that makes her butt look big and then you’ll have to repeat the lie every time she wears it.
Lying to save a life may be tainted with selfish intent, say if someone were also concerned with getting in trouble for hiding someone in danger, but the idea of protecting that life would seem to be the controlling circumstance.
To lie is to not trust God is in control.
Whatever happened with sit-rep? She’s disappeared a long time ago
He’s still on Facebook and posts there on occasion.
I didn’t know that! Fascinating.
Even deception can moral "with upright intention and within reason" (I realize this requires some unpacking) -- as long as you do not actually lie. For instance, an assumed name and disguise.
What do you think?
I see. So rather than believing that Scripture interprets Scripture, showing some things to be are unconditionally wrong, while revealing exceptions based on the intent of the law, thus disobeying authority can be right although obedience to which is strongly unequivocally commanded in some places (as is not working on the Sabbath), you require lying to be unconditionally wrong and an act of unbelief. Which renders God to be blessing such liars as the handmaidens and Rahab who lied to save lives. To such belongs the question, "Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill?" (Mark 3:4) At least the isolationist interpreters held their peace at that answer.
And rather than trusting God that He would enable murderers to believe the lie that sent idolatrous would-be murderers/enemies of Israel off the trail of the Israelites, she should have told them them where they were so they could kill them. Fair enough, if such faith is not foolishness, then should we expect you to betray the location of your little child to pedophiles intent of raping ? I admire your faith if so, if it is indeed so strong as to deliver her.
Glory to God. Note however that "Therefore" in Exodus 1:20 is not there in the Hebrew, but is obviously warranted. It can be argued that God blessed the midwives because they saved the Hebrew male children, but not because they lied about it, but which distinction is not in the text, and their lying would have enabled more Hebrew male children to be saved, under the deception that "the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them." (v. 29) Glory to God.
In contrast, today Americans choose to murder approx. 1 out of 5 conceived children via abortion, while slowly killing others due to diet and destructive ideology.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: (Deuteronomy 30:19)
I don’t reply to argumentum ad absurdum comments.
Reduction to the impossible, found repeatedly in Aristotle's Prior Analytics. In its most general construal, reductio ad absurdum - reductio for short – is a process of refutation on grounds that absurd - and patently untenable consequences would ensue from accepting the item at issue. In its most general construal, reductio ad absurdum - reductio for short – is a process of refutation on grounds that absurd - and patently untenable consequences would ensue from accepting the item at issue.- http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/
In their book The Apologetics of Jesus authors Norman Geisler and Patrick Zukeran demonstrate that Jesus was a master logician and very adept with making arguments. For example, they point out an example of Jesus arguing reductio ad absurdum in the gospels:
"Reductio ad absurdum (reduction of absurdity) is an argument that demonstrates that if something is supposed to be true but it leads to a contradiction or absurdity, then it cannot be true. It works this way: The argument begins with the premises your opponent holds. Then you reveal how this leads to a contradiction, and thus your opponent's view is reduced to absurdity. This is a powerful way to reveal the false nature of a view, for if we can show that it leads to a contradiction, then it cannot be true.
Matthew 12:22-28. Jesus uses the reductio ad absurdum argument to respond to the Pharisees' accusation that he is exorcising demons by the power of Satan. Jesus demonstrates that their premise leads to a contradiction: "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out?" (vv. 25-27)
- http://truthbomb.blogspot.com/2013/12/jesus-argued-reductio-ad-absurdum.html
Did you expect to NOT be called out to provide the 'right' analysis?
And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
The first problem is “Can someone actually *tell* the whole truth?”
I got to see a good illustration of this with three men: one who was intellectually oriented; the second who was emotionally oriented; and the third who was physically oriented.
The third one had run in a high school track meet. The second had watched him from the stands. And the first one, the intellectual, asked them the simple question: “How was the race?”
The third one, the physical one, responded by describing the race in physical terms. “It was great! I ran and ran and ran, and I was getting tired, but then I got my second wind and really ran!”
The first one, the intellectual one, responded with a string of data-oriented questions to the third one. Who won? What was their fastest time? Who came in second and third? (etc.)
The third one responded with a combination of ‘whatever’, and ‘who cares?’ At this point the second one chimed in by saying to the third: “You won, and you had a great time, almost a personal best!” He didn’t recall the actual numbers, though.
Unhappy with the third one’s answer since it contained no “facts” or “data”, the intellectual first one turned to the emotional second one and asked him the same question.
“It was great!”, he said. “At first we were behind, and everyone was feeling bad, but then we caught up and everyone got so excited and were cheering!”
In any event, after their meeting I got with each of the three by themselves. Each was convinced the other two were not communicating truthfully, as they just paid attention to uninteresting stuff and ignored what was important.
Correct me if I'm wrong!
You seem to be saying that the choices are only two. Either (1) lie to save the innocent lives, or (2) tell where the innocent are, so the murderers can kill them.
Are those really the only options?
What about #43 --- silence or subterfuge --- or: shoot the Nazi!?
Killing aggressors is more God-pleasing than lying to them, it seems to me. Killing aggressors in order to defend the innocent is never called a sin in Scripture, but lying is (Revelation 21:8) "But the cowardly, 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."
God, of course, can be trusted to judge each case with a light that exceeds all our unlightenment, and with such complete goodness that everybody without exception will have to say, "It's amazing, but He was absolutely right."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.