Creationist: Murdering Jews may be preferable to lying to prevent the murder


I’m cutting the monster a lot of slack with the headline.

P. Z. Myers publicized the e-mail exchange involving Bodie Hodge, a minor deity at the anti-science, creationist organization Answers in Genesis (AiG).  Myers was nice to the guy, contrary to the usual creationist cartoon of Myers as somehow immoral for being a non-worshipper of gods.  Well, he was nicer than I would have been.  But Myers expects Christians to exhibit no sense of shame, no common sense, and twisted morality.  I expect bettter of them.

A reader posed that age-old question to Hodge:  Is the Christian rule against lying so strong that a Christian should tell Nazi troops where Jewish families are hiding?  Hodge weasels later by saying he hopes he never has to make such a choice, and that he really doesn’t know how he’d act in that situation.  But this comes only after he says that telling  a lie to Nazis to save Jews will get one burned in hell.  And then he goes on to note it’s better to be in good with God than to act morally.

In other words, better to become an accomplice in the murder of Jews than to stand up against murderers.

I don’t get how these charlatans of religion, reason to such a point.

What would Jesus do?  We know.  When the crowd was threatening to stone to death a woman guilty of adultery and she sought refuge with Jesus, Jesus stood up to the mob and saved her life.  Just execution of Biblical law or shelter the accused, Jesus stood against the murder, even murder sanctioned by the religious rules of the community.

We also know that scripture endorses deception from time to time.  You know these AiG clowns are charlatans when they say stupid stuff like this.  Hodge tries to explain away another case of deception by inventing a scenario not found in scripture in which the lie doesn’t get told.

He’s forgotten the story of Jacob and Esau, and how Jacob and his mother conpsired to deceive Isaac in order to steal away Esau’s birthright (Esau and Jacob were twins, by the way).  Jacob got away with the deed, was then blessed by God.  He took a new name:  Israel.  He lived on to be the seed of Judaism, the religion Jesus followed and the foundation of Christianity.

To AiG, it appears that scripture is just a dusty old book, except when they can twist it to support their bigotry.  Here’s irony for you:  The story of Jacob is in Genesis.  You know, as in “Answers in Genesis.”  They don’t even know their own namesake book!

Here in America, as a nation we overcame that morality-or-religion problem with Huck Finn.  The ill-educated young teen, an absentee to grammar, faces the moral decision as he floats down the Mississippi with Jim, an escaped slave who has saved Huck’s life and is in other ways a very good friend.  Huck notes that the preachers are all agreed that Huck’s moral duty is to turn Jim in as an escaped slave, to condemn Jim to a continued life of slavery, should Jim survive the lashing.  Huck Finn puts the dilemma squarely:  Whether to obey God and turn in Jim to the authorities, or to burn in hell and let Jim live the life of a free man.  Huck agonizes, but decides:  He’ll burn in hell rather than give away his friend.

Myers wrote:

As a non-Bible believing amoral godless atheist, my first thought was that this is trivial: you lie your pants off. The ‘crime’ of telling a lie pales into insignificance against the crime of enabling the death of fellow human beings.

According to Bodie Hodge of AiG, though, I’m wrong. The good Christian should reject lies, Satan’s tools, in all circumstances, and should immediately ‘fess up the location of the Jews. He backs it up with Bible quotes, too.

If we love God, we should obey Him (John 14:15). To love God first means to obey Him first–before looking at our neighbor. So, is the greater good trusting God when He says not to lie or trusting in our fallible, sinful minds about the uncertain future?

Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don’t know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life–keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway.

As Christians, we need to keep in mind that Jesus Christ reigns. All authority has been given to Him (Matthew 28:18), and He sits on the throne of God at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33; Hebrews 8:1). Nothing can happen without His say. Even Satan could not touch Peter without Christ’s approval (Luke 22:31). Regardless, if one were to lie or not, Jesus Christ is in control of timing every person’s life and able to discern our motives. It is not for us to worry over what might become, but rather to place our faith and obedience in Christ and to let Him do the reigning. For we do not know the future, whereas God has been telling the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).

Gosh. I never thought of it that way. So…all those Christians who sheltered Jews during WWII are actually burning in hell right now for their sinful wickedness? That is so counterintuitive, it must be true!

One more time we should side with morality, and against creationist distortions of Christianity and morality.

With all the learning they get at that reeking cesspool the creationism museum, you’d think they could demonstrate the moral fiber of a tobacco-chewing, food-stealing, school-cutting runaway teen, Huckleberry Finn.

Full AiG post below the fold (I expect them to strike it down when they rethink; let all Christians pray to God they do rethink).

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Here’s the post at AiG’s site.

The following is an email exchange between a reader and Bodie Hodge:

You, know I almost hate to do this because I know how much email you guys handle . . . But I want to respond to Bodie Hodge’s “contradictions” article on Rahab’s “lie”. Bodie is almost always right on the mark and is probably my favorite feedback man, but in this case I have to take exception to his saying that it is always wrong to lie . . . The ninth commandment says we should never bear false witness against our neighbor (or anyone). But if the Nazis are looking for Jews, and you know where they are, it would not be wrong to lie, in order to protect them, nor would this be bearing false witness “against” someone . . . I think in the same way the Israeli midwives lied to the Egyptians about the birthing of male babies in Moses’s day . . . I know its a rare exception, but there may be other circumstances when it might be appropriate to “lie”, although obviously, 99% percent of the time it would be wrong . . . Keep up the good work, all of you, your ministry is the most awesome in the world, just blows me away

—M.H.


Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis and thanks for the comments. I know this can be a touchy subject, but please bear with me as I try to explain. Keep in mind that I, too, am not perfect but will try to answer as scripturally as possible. (Also, sorry for the length—but this feedback will allow me the breadth that I did not have with the contradiction article on Rahab on the website.)

Righteous Lies?

Bearing false witness is a lie, and in Hebrew the word for false in Exodus 20:16 is sheqer, which literally means “lie.” It is derived from the Hebrew word shaqar, which means “deal falsely, be false, trick, and cheat.” There are many verses in the Bible that reaffirm the Ninth Commandment, and a couple are:

Leviticus 19:11
You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.

1 John 2:21
I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

The devil is the father of lies (John 8:44), and one lie to God the Holy Spirit was worthy of instant death for Ananias (Acts 5:3–5). Paul points out that even if he were to lie for the glory of God, he would be deemed a sinner for such an act:

Romans 3:7
For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?

In light of such passages, does a “righteous lie” really exist? The most common example sent to me was envisioning the Holocaust and being placed in the position of lying to potentially protect someone’s life. Like most, if placed in such a difficult situation, it would be very difficult. In fact, I could never be sure what I would do, especially if it were a loved one.

But consider for a moment that we are all already sentenced to die because we are sinners (Romans 5:12). It is going to happen regardless. If a lie helps keep someone alive for a matter of moments compared to eternity, was the lie, which is high treason against the Creator, worth it?

It would be like sitting in a cell on death row and when the guards come to take your roommate to the electric chair, you lie to the guards and say you don’t know where the person went—while your roommate is hiding under their covers on the bed. Does it really help? Since we are all sinners (Romans 3:23), death is coming for us, and there is an appointed time (Ecclesiastes 3:2).

Proverbs 12:19
The truthful lip shall be established forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment.

Is it worth sinning against God to try to buy a moment of time next to eternity—intentionally lying is foolish and would only harm the extent of your own life (Ecclesiastes 7:17). Lets’s look further at Scripture for an example of a situation where a lie could have saved a life.

Stephen

Stephen in Acts 6–7 preached Christ, and men came against him. This culminated with a question by the high priest in Acts 7:1 who said: “Are these things so?”

At this point, Stephen could have done a “righteous lie” to save his life so that he could have many more years to preach the gospel. However, Stephen laid a long and appropriate foundation for Christ—then preached Christ. And they killed him.

But this event triggered a persecution that sent the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11:19) and peaked with Paul (who consented to Stephen’s death) coming to Christ and taking the message to the Gentiles and writing several books of the New Testament. The Lord had a greater purpose for Stephen—even though it cost him his life. Keep in mind, however, that this, and other examples, are about the person in question—not another.

Do We Know What God Had in Mind?

I often wonder if a Nazi soldier asked if someone was there hiding and they told the truth before God, could the Lord have in mind a greater purpose? Could God have used that person to free a great many people who ultimately died in the Holocaust? Or have done something to stop the war earlier? Or cause a great number of Jews and Nazi’s to come to know Christ? It is possible, but we simply cannot know. And one should not dwell too long on “what ifs” anyway.

No doubt, there is great value in the truth (John 8:32). As fallible, sinful human beings, our imperfect thoughts may not be able to comprehend what God has in mind, and we need to strive to trust God when He speaks on this subject, regardless how hard it may be. We need to place our faith fully in Christ and trust in God in all things—and not lean on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5).

I’m not saying this to be “preachy,” because I really don’t know what I would do in such a situation. However, I would pray that the Lord would grant me the wisdom to know what to say and how to say it—but more preferably—how to avoid being in that situation in the first place.

If Forced into This Situation . . . What Then?

Let’s consider again the Nazi-Holocaust situation: there seems to be a conflict in the situation to lie before God to try to save someone else’s life. The result is often called the “greater good” or “lesser of two evils.”

I’ve been told in the past that the lesser of these two evils would be to lie to save a life—hence the common phrase “a righteous lie.” This is often justified by appealing to the command to love our neighbor (Romans 13:9).

But how does God view this, remembering that God is a discerner of our motives. To God, a lie for selfish motive was worthy of death to Ananias. But, in fact, just one sin is worthy of death (Genesis 2:17). (This should be a reminder that we should continually praise God for His grace that is bestowed upon us). But let’s look at Scripture again. The two greatest commandments are:

Mark 12:28–31
Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first1 commandment of all?” Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Jesus tells us that all the commandments can be summed up into these two statements. But of these two, the first is to love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. So, this would trump the second. Our actions toward God should trump our actions toward men. Peter also affirmed this:

Acts 5:29
But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

If we love God, we should obey Him (John 14:15). To love God first means to obey Him first—before looking at our neighbor. So, is the greater good trusting God when He says not to lie or trusting in our fallible, sinful minds about the uncertain future?

Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don’t know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life—keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway.

As Christians, we need to keep in mind that Jesus Christ reigns. All authority has been given to Him (Matthew 28:18), and He sits on the throne of God at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33; Hebrews 8:1). Nothing can happen without His say. Even Satan could not touch Peter without Christ’s approval (Luke 22:31). Regardless, if one were to lie or not, Jesus Christ is in control of timing every person’s life and able to discern our motives. It is not for us to worry over what might become, but rather to place our faith and obedience in Christ and to let Him do the reigning. For we do not know the future, whereas God has been telling the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).


Wow, you put a lot of work in to that answer Bodie, and from a biblical basis too. I agree with you 100% about lying to protect yourself, that could be interpreted as mere cowardice, and I think most of your biblical examples dealt with that. However there is a scripture in Exodus ch.1 vs. 15–22, in which the Jewish midwives are told to kill all the male babies they delivered but refused to do so. When asked why they hadn’t destroyed the babies, they told the Egyptians the Hebrew women simply gave birth faster than the Egyptian women, and had the babies before the midwives got there. Vs.17 however says that the Jewish midwives saved the male children alive, so here they are lying not only to save the male babies but probably to escape punishment from the Egyptians. Vs. 20 says that God dealt well with the midwives for doing this. I think this is one of the rare examples or cases where lying would truly not be offensive to our Creator. At any rate, I think this scripture shows that not all lies are equal, at least to my mind. In that most lies are done for self advancement, self protection, greed, etc., but some are done at least with the intention of protecting others, their reputations or physical selves. I can’t fault your stance though, your conscience and the Word must be your guide. Keep up the good work.

—M.H.


I looked up the passage about the midwives, and I, personally, don’t believe they lied. Scripture doesn’t really say they did. Please see the context:

Exodus 1:15–22
Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?” And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.” Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them. So Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive.”

Naturally, their fear of God led them to refuse the order to murder. It makes more sense to me that they could have informed the Hebrew wives what the Pharaoh had commanded, and, thus, many of the Israelite women were giving birth before the midwives would arrive so they would not be in a position of killing the child. Perhaps the midwives took their time to arrive as well. That would allow the children to survive and the midwives to speak the truth to Pharaoh.

What would make pregnant mothers more vigorous or lively to have the child born? Make them aware that if they do not give birth quickly their child’s life may be in danger. There are any number of ways the mothers and midwives could have avoided it.

With humbleness in Christ,
Bodie

“Humbleness in Christ?” What about reason? What about sanity? What about morality? What about a little sense of shame?

33 Responses to Creationist: Murdering Jews may be preferable to lying to prevent the murder

  1. Nick Kelsier says:

    Apparently, matt, you didn’t actually read what was said.

    I have no problem in those who believe in ID as far as letting them believe that.

    My problem is their desire to teach it in science class. it isn’t science, nothing about it is science. It is a religious belief and nothing more.

    And this country is getting further behind the 8 ball when it comes to the scientific knowledge of this country and I don’t feel like letting Lower and his ilk lower it any further.

    Like

  2. matt coster says:

    So what are you actually whining about? Go and get a life and let people believe whatever they feel to be right.

    Like

  3. Nick Kelsier says:

    Lower writes:
    For example, I can cause a ball to roll, but that does not make me the ball.

    And a rainstorm can cause a ball to roll but that doesn’t mean there was some intelligence at hand to do so.

    Quit confusing religious belief for science. And quit trying to trample on everyone’s rights just because you’re pissy that science won’t provide a crutch for your apparently weak faith. If you believe that God is the creator of the universe and all life then why exactly do you need science to say it? What’s your problem with science remaining neutral when it comes to the subject of God or any god or whatever other deity in question?

    I mean if I wanted to be snarky…well snarkier I could just say that your “proof” is only proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the cause of the universe. Or Puff the Magic dragon. Or some alien lifeform.

    Time for you to realize that your position is belief and nothing more.

    Like

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    But it has Nick – you simply fail to see. Science tells us that the cause cannot be the effect.

    I fear a fuzzification of causes and effects is coming.

    For example, I can cause a ball to roll, but that does not make me the ball.

    Nor does it prevent you from being a ball, later, nor say you could not have been a ball, earlier.

    On the other hand, a billiard ball may collide with another billiard ball, causing the second to move. That does not stop the first from being a billiard ball. You’re not talking cause or effect here, you’re talking definitions.

    Using life as an example – my parents are my cause – I am their effect. My parents (cause) exists outside of me (effect) – i.e. I am not my parents. The effect and the cause are separate. So, what is the effect?

    Not necessarily accurate. Your parents did not choose which sperm, which egg. Your parents did not govern the insemination. Your parents had nothing to do with the intertwining of the DNA. Your parents neither commanded the dividing of the egg cell into two, then four, and so on, nor controlled its progress.

    DNA replicates on its own, not at command. That your parents copulated we conjecture, but do not know for certain. That your DNA replicates itself daily in your cells, they do not control, nor do you. What is the cause? What is the effect?

    You’re looking at a lot of causes and effects bundled, and labeling the bundle “cause” or “effect.” That’s fuzzing the laws of nature a bit at least.

    Nature/universe. Therefore the cause must be separate from the effect – i.e. defined as “supernatural.”

    Big Bang is the proximate cause of the universe. Is Big Bang an effect from another cause? We don’t know. Evidence does not support a claim that it was supernatural, however. Evidence also doesn’t deny that claim. You must assume without evidence. At that point, you’ve stepped beyond science.

    For almost every effect, we can find a proximate cause in nature. The only one where we have no proximate cause is Big Bang. Nothing else known for certain to have happened lends itself to a supernatural cause.

    Like

  5. lowerleavell says:

    If I’m being dimwitted (a term that really advances the discussion, I’m sure), then let’s test your assertion: Tell me Nick, what sufficient natural cause is there that is not a part of the effect that would be sufficient in answering the need for a cause without it being an effect while again, remaining completely natural?

    And how is it a theology debate if it is objectively true?

    Like

  6. Nick Kelsier says:

    Lower, get this through your head. It has not said there has to be a supernatural cause. it’s said there has to be a cause yes…but not a supernatural one. Quit putting into science’s mouth words it hasn’t said.

    Science can not pick sides in a theological debate.

    You’re being dimwitted an in effect saying that lightning, to use an example, is caused by a god. Just because something may need a cause, lower, does not mean that cause has to be sentient.

    Like

  7. lowerleavell says:

    Nick said, “you are also ignoring the fact that science has not said that there is a supernatural requirement for the creation of the universe of the creation of life.”

    But it has Nick – you simply fail to see. Science tells us that the cause cannot be the effect. For example, I can cause a ball to roll, but that does not make me the ball. Using life as an example – my parents are my cause – I am their effect. My parents (cause) exists outside of me (effect) – i.e. I am not my parents. The effect and the cause are separate. So, what is the effect? Nature/universe. Therefore the cause must be separate from the effect – i.e. defined as “supernatural.”

    Dictionary definition of supernatural:
    “of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural;”

    Like

  8. lowerleavell says:

    Ed said, “Sorry about that, Joe. I’ll notify WordPress.”

    Oops. Thanks anyway Ed but it wasn’t WordPress, it was me. :-) I took your suggestion and checked my e-mail and it was out of date. So I changed my info so that it would work. :-) Sorry for the bother.

    Nick said, “Because it’s simple logic, Lower. If God expects us to behave morally then one can expect God to do so. Would you follow a god that doesn’t? I seem to recall quite a few of the ancient gods, particularly the Greek/Roman and Norse were quite lecherous and murderous. Would you follow them?

    Or to use a more modern day anaology. Hitler beleived that God supported what he did to the Jews. If you found out that God did indeed support what Hitler did to the Jews would you still follow God?”

    The problem with your logic is that it is starting from a subjective assessment of God – that He desires us to behave morally and that He practices what He preaches. This is deductive reasoning without proving the premise first. If “a” is true, then “b” must logically be true. But you haven’t established that “a” is true from any authoritative source, so how do we know that “b” is true? Now, the Bible does say that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). But you don’t get that from logic, you get that from the Bible – it’s logic that gave us the Greek/Roman gods in the first place (i.e., there is a storm so that means that the gods are angry, so they must be mean gods). People used to sacrifice their own children to the gods to get good crops, because the gods were vengeful and selfish! It’s not good what human “logic” will lead people to! I’ve seen logic used to justify some pretty atrocious things! Having a perfect God who does not lie is not logical, because logic would surmise that since all people lie, then God must also lie, be self centered, etc. And that’s exactly what you see in the man-made gods of cultures past. I wouldn’t follow a god that lied, no. But there were plenty of Zeus, Jupiter, Thor, etc. worshippers in their day. So, who are you to say that they were absolutely wrong for doing so? By what authority do you make these audacious claims!

    Nick said, “As for my saying lying is wrong…really you want to argue that? Tell me..where were you in Bible class/church when they taught about “bearing false witness.””

    Sigh…what I’m saying is that you’re making an absolute statement without backing it up with anything but your subjective arguments. If you absolutely tell me that lying is wrong – you must tell me by what authority you make that argument. If it is so wrong, why do so many people do it every day? Why do politicians use it to advance their agendas? Why do spouses use it to cover up affairs? If I surveyed 1,000 people about lying, I would wager that most people believe its ok to lie if it doesn’t hurt anyone, if it is to protect someone from hurt, and if you don’t get caught. So here comes Nick saying, “lying is wrong because God says so!” Yet you fail to show me from any source other than your own logic that God says it’s wrong. I mean, what if God is wrong! Why is God’s logic better than ours?! Why is yours better than mine?! Why is your logic so much better than the logic most people employ on a day to day, functional basis? I’ll let you know my agenda here – I’m trying to get you to understand that for you to say that lying is wrong it’s because 1) there actually is an authority we call God, and He says it’s wrong because He is the moral absolute. And 2), how Christians at least know that is because it’s written in the Bible, an authoritative source that Christians trust to be accurate because God wrote it.

    Nick said, “Now, admittedly, there are times where lying is actually the moral thing to do.”

    Who determines what is moral? Who are you to judge whether or not lying is actually the moral thing to do? How dare you make truths for other people! Why should all people bow to the moral judgment of Nick who says that there are times when lying is the moral thing to do? If you say that it’s common knowledge, then you’ve determined that morality is simply an anarchical vote of the masses.

    For a Christian, morality is derived from the dictates of a just and honest God, who said, “Do not bear false witness.” So, that being said, since my own logic and judgment is not the authority on all things moral, but I instead deter my judgment to a higher authority, then the question of “is lying ever the right thing to do” is not a simple question but one which takes a lot of consideration. From what I read about God, He hates lying enough to command us not to do it. From my perspective, if I could save a life by lying, would not the benefits of lying outweigh the consequences? But the dilemma comes when you actually care about what God thinks and want to follow what He says. If you have two sources of morality (our logic and God) that seem to contradict each other, what then? I’ve told you my take – go back and read it – sum up – a Christian defers his logic to God even when it doesn’t make sense in our finite minds, though I do see Jesus saying that the laws of God were made for man, not man for the law. It’s called trusting in the character of God – i.e. faith. But don’t mock Christians by saying that this is simply an easy dilemma. It is if we start with our own logic – duh, I’m going to lie to try and save a life. But if we recognize that our own judgments of morality fail sometimes (if they didn’t we wouldn’t have such a high divorce rate in this country) then how do we know we’re always going to make the right decision? Instead, a Christian banks on the fact that God never messes up and so His story is the right one to get into.

    Nick said, “And as for my being open minded, call me close minded on the subject of ID all you want. But that still doesn’t change the fact that I’m right. If only for this simple reason. The second you say in science class there has to be a supernatural source for all life and the entire universe is the second someone is going to ask “Who is that supernatural source?” and that is the second you’ve trampled on the rights of athesits plus anyone who doesn’t believe in the deity that you’re going to name.”

    Again, you assume what I want to happen so you can be right. Sure, as a Christian I’d love to admit to wanting to teach all the children of this country about Jesus, about a God who loves them, who created them, who died and rose again so that they could have life that doesn’t end and a relationship with God Himself. But that’s not for a school to decide and that’s not for me to decide – that’s for parents to decide. That’s why we have the freedom of religion in this country because we don’t want someone else telling us what we should teach our children! That’s why the Christian school movement happened – parents told schools what they wanted their children taught and the school did where the public schools could not. If the state dictates what the children are to be taught – God help us all. Can you say, North Korea anyone? Shoot, that’s how we got WWII and how Hitler got young people to blindly following him in the first place!

    However, should science be so afraid of the question that they deny it being a legitimate question? If science truly did point to the necessity of a first cause as well as a source for all life, etc. Would it not be bearing false witness to try and cover that up because we want to avoid the question, “Who is that supernatural source?” However, I did not say that the public school should name the deity. You’re reading into my answer. A simple, “science cannot give us that answer” would suffice for the purposes of science class. A class on popular alternate worldviews would address that subject however, which is what you find in a philosophy and world religions class.

    Nick said, “If you want to believe that God created the universe and all life in it that’s fine..that’s your right. But it still just a religious belief and nothing more. You have no right to teach your religious beliefs in the public schools. It’s not me being closed minded, Lower, it’s you. You simply are too closed minded to recognize the fact that what you want tramples over everyone’s rights to their religious beliefs or lack thereof.”

    Yes, I personally believe that God created the universe and all life and I do recognize that it is a religious belief. I’m not forcing anyone to believe it and I’ve never said that it should be taught in public school. As I’ve said in so many discussions with you in the past – are you discussing this with me personally or with the entirety of evangelical Christianity? I have good, logical reasons for believing what I do, but at the end of the day, it does indeed boil down to a system of faith because while I can say that there are characteristics of the first cause that can be safely presumed (such as being outside of time, space, and matter; being eternal, being all knowing and all powerful, etc – which perfectly match up with the God of the Bible), I cannot presume that the God of the Bible indeed exists based solely on logic and evidence. Yeah, I agree – it’s a system of belief and I’m banking my soul on the God of the Bible and His Son Jesus, absolutely!

    Yet, at the same time, atheism itself is a religious belief because it is a system of faith – you cannot prove that there is NO God absolutely. To make that claim, you would have to have infinite wisdom of the universe, which by definition, would make you a god, which would refute atheism. An atheist’s hope is simply to believe by faith in their logic that there may or may not be a God and the atheist chooses to bank their worldview on the negative. So, why should children be strapped into one worldview of atheism in our public schools? If you teach that the universe began apart from any supernatural cause so as to not offend atheists then you are teaching a religious worldview, one that theists object to. Why should an atheist’s religious rights trump mine? Where are tolerance, equality, objectivity, and the first amendment’s prohibition of state religions? If the evidence of science states that all effects have a cause and it can be determined (as even Big Bangers admit – though the Big Bang is insufficient to answer the demand for a first cause) that the universe is an effect to a cause, then it is completely honest to teach children the hard data of cause and effect. It is dishonest to teach otherwise.

    Nick said, “This matter has been settled by the courts. It’s time for you quit chasing that particular windmill, Don Quixote.”

    Are these the same courts that just reversed 100 years of policy regarding campaign donations from corporations? I would wager that not every decision handed down by “the courts” you agree with. It may be law, but it doesn’t make it right.

    By the way…I can answer your objections as best I can, but I’m not God and I don’t have all the answers, ok? And even if I did, answering objections wouldn’t make anyone a follower of Jesus, would it? If someone single objected to marriage because of a list of reasons and I answered all of them, it wouldn’t make them married. They still wouldn’t have met anyone! I got married because I met a person, and all my objections that were still there got really small and insignificant because of knowing the person. You’re looking at evangelical Christianity and saying, “I can’t embrace that!” because of all your objections. But even if every one of your objections were answered, you still wouldn’t have the relationship with Jesus. If I were an atheists or an unbeliever, I would honestly pray to God that if He exists, I want to meet Him and know Him, more than I want answers to all my questions first. Questions may be answered, but some many not. I still have objections to marriage logically – it costs a lot, it takes a lot of my time, etc. But the relationship I have with my wife makes all those objections seems small and insignificant. So, I still have questions about God and Jesus, and how all the universe happened, etc. But the relationship that I have with Him makes all those questions seem so small because of the person of Jesus. Marriage vs. person – Christianity vs. Jesus.

    Praying for you Nick – praying for others who may read this.

    I’m going to have to work on getting done with this conversation. I’m spending too much time on here again….

    Like

  9. Nick Kelsier says:

    Oh forgot one part, Lower.

    You are also ignoring the fact that science has not said that there is a supernatural requirement for the creation of the universe or the creation of life.

    If and until it does so…you are screwed in what you want. Time to give it up, Lower. You’re in a no win position with your argument.

    Like

  10. Nick Kelsier says:

    Lower writes:
    Still a fallacious argument. Who are you to presume what God would have a problem with? Who are you to determine what constitutes worthiness of worship? I’ve literally seen people bow down to a rock in worship before…really. What gives you the right to tell them they’re wrong and the rock isn’t “God”? Who are you to say that lying is wrong?! How judgmental and intolerant! Or…maybe you got a glimpse of God’s character from…say…perhaps a book? Almost sounds like you’re calling this book an authority on stuff about God. Hmm….

    Because it’s simple logic, Lower. If God expects us to behave morally then one can expect God to do so. Would you follow a god that doesn’t? I seem to recall quite a few of the ancient gods, particularly the greek/Roman and Norse were quite lecherous and murderous. Would you follow them?

    Or to use a more modern day anaology. Hitler beleived that God supported what he did to the Jews. If you found out that God did indeed support what Hitler did to the Jews would you still follow God?

    As for my saying lying is wrong…really you want to argue that? Tell me..where were you in Bible class/church when they taught about “bearing false witness.” You do know what means right? Now, admittedly, there are times where lying is actually the moral thing to do. But lying and saying that there is a scientific requirement that there be a supernatural source for life isn’t moral. It’s just lying.

    And as for my being open minded, call me close minded on the subject of ID all you want. But that still doesn’t change the fact that I’m right. If only for this simple reason. The second you say in science class there has to be a supernatural source for all life and the entire universe is the second someone is going to ask “Who is that supernatural source?” and that is the second you’ve trampled on the rights of athesits plus anyone who doesn’t believe in the deity that you’re going to name.

    You keep on harping about “open mindedness” but you want science to be closed minded when it comes to respecting people’s rights to believe in a god or not. Would you like to make up your mind now?

    If you want to believe that God created the universe and all life in it that’s fine..that’s your right. But it still just a religious belief and nothing more. You have no right to teach your religious beliefs in the public schools. It’s not me being closed minded, Lower, it’s you. You simply are too closed minded to recognize the fact that what you want tramples over everyone’s rights to their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

    This matter has been settled by the courts. It’s time for you quit chasing that particular windmill, Don Quixote.

    Like

  11. Ed Darrell says:

    This is what happens when I check the “notify me of new posts via e-mail” and never get anything – I’m completely out of the loop. :-) So, I thought I’d just double check and see if anything was written – obviously yes.

    Sorry about that, Joe. I’ll notify WordPress.

    Check to be sure that you’re registered with WordPress with your current e-mail.

    I have little control, but I’ll do what I can to get it fixed.

    Like

  12. lowerleavell says:

    I’m pretty sure Nick said, but don’t quote me, “Actually you misquoted me there, Lower. Would you like to try again? What I said was God would have a problem with a Christian lying in God’s name and if God doesn’t have a problem when a Christian does lie in God’s name then God doesn’t deserve to be worshipped.”

    My fault for copying and pasting. I apologize if I misquoted by using your actual words. – What I quoted you as to saying you posted what I quoted on November 27, 2009 at 1:37 P.M, second paragraph. I don’t recall reading what you’re now saying you said. Could you let me know when so I could get some more context? I mean, if you want to change your mind, that’s fine, but this? Anyone else reading this understanding why it’s difficult to post here?

    Still a fallacious argument. Who are you to presume what God would have a problem with? Who are you to determine what constitutes worthiness of worship? I’ve literally seen people bow down to a rock in worship before…really. What gives you the right to tell them they’re wrong and the rock isn’t “God”? Who are you to say that lying is wrong?! How judgmental and intolerant! Or…maybe you got a glimpse of God’s character from…say…perhaps a book? Almost sounds like you’re calling this book an authority on stuff about God. Hmm….

    You also said “And there is no scientific requirement for a supernatural start to everything, Lower. And again…who would you have science identify as that source?”

    That’s an entirely different discussion – one which I’d be willing to have with someone open minded in the discussion.

    Like

  13. Nick Kelsier says:

    Lower writes:
    Christians throughout the centuries have been persecuted and killed by simply telling the truth, i.e., “I’m a follower of Jesus Christ.” Pick up a copy of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs if you don’t believe me. Even your Catholic church has killed hundreds of thousands; if not millions of Christians in the name of “the church” simply because they confessed that they followed Jesus, not the Roman Catholic Church. (Look up the Waldensians as one small example).

    And Christians have persecuted and killed others for the exact same reasons, Lower. What? You want to pretend that we Christians are innocent victims and always have been? I know Christian history better then you, Lower. I know my own churches history better then you. Which is why it pisses me off when my fellow Christians do the exact same things that the church has done before that it shouldn’t have. And I’ll point out that your fellow Protestants have killed quite a lot of Catholics for the same reasons that Catholics killed quite a lot of Protestants. Saying catholics aren’t Christians, little one, because they are members of the Roman Catholic church is as stupid and idiotic as saying Protestants aren’t Christians because they aren’t members of the Roman Catholic church. Would you care to guess the number of times I’ve had evangelical Protestants tell me that I’m not really Christian because I’m Catholic? Seriously, your side should be a bit more careful of playing that game. It’s not in a position to win such a game.

    Whereas Phil wants to pretend I’m not Christian because it offends his sensibilities that I *gasp* don’t buy into the Creationism/Intelligent nonsense.

    Simply and bluntly put, Creationism/Intelligent Design does not belong in any science class in the world. None of it is science. You want to teach it in a comparitive religions class be my guest, I have no problem with that. You want your church to teach it? Be my guest, I have no problem with that either. But that is as much rope as you’re getting.

    Oh and by the way, little one, Catholics follow Jesus. I have no idea where you got the idea to the contrary but it’s bull—t.

    And it’s you that doesn’t listen. Now pay attention: You have no right to teach ID in the public schools science class rooms. None..whatsosever. So get rid of that desire.

    Like

  14. Nick Kelsier says:

    Lower writes:
    You said, “And if God somehow has a problem with that Christian for lying in that situation then God is a monster and doesn’t deserve to be worshipped or followed.”

    Actually you misquoted me there, Lower. Would you like to try again? What I said was God would have a problem with a Christian lying in God’s name and if God doesn’t have a problem when a Christian does lie in God’s name then God doesn’t deserve to be worshipped.

    And there is no scientific requirement for a supernatural start to everything, Lower. And again…who would you have science identify as that source?

    Like

  15. lowerleavell says:

    This is what happens when I check the “notify me of new posts via e-mail” and never get anything – I’m completely out of the loop. :-) So, I thought I’d just double check and see if anything was written – obviously yes.

    Nick, there are some of us (Christians) who actually do believe that God is in control – meaning, that if I screw up, His story isn’t going to be thwarted. I think that’s what “the guy” from AIG was trying to say, but maybe that’s just my perception reading into it, I’m not sure – basically, God’s not stopped by us lying, or not lying, so He doesn’t necessarily need our help in the situation by telling a fib, because even if we don’t see it, He’s in control. – I would agree with that even in bad situations. When Jesus went to the cross, it seemed really, really bad from a human perspective, but He was still in complete, a master of the situation who could have gotten out of it at any time by…lying (He could have said, “I’m not the Son of God!”). When Jesus’ disciples were all (but one) murdered for being Christians, did God stop being in control? No. That doesn’t mean that God caused the murder of the Jews at the Holocaust, it just means that those who would do evil (Hitler) haven’t thwarted God from actually winning the war between good and evil, nor could they.

    Christians throughout the centuries have been persecuted and killed by simply telling the truth, i.e., “I’m a follower of Jesus Christ.” Pick up a copy of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs if you don’t believe me. Even your Catholic church has killed hundreds of thousands; if not millions of Christians in the name of “the church” simply because they confessed that they followed Jesus, not the Roman Catholic Church. (Look up the Waldensians as one small example).

    Also, being “Catholic” doesn’t mean you’re a Christian. A Christian is someone who follows Christ (Christ-like) – someone who has their own relationship with Him. I may belong to the Baptist Church, Presbyterian Church, Anglican Church etc. but that’s not what makes me a Christian. I love the quote and I don’t know who it’s from, “being in a church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than being in a garage makes you a car.”

    Btw, I “stopped” posting on here not because I feel the need to be seen as wise and correct. I’m the youngest sibling in my family and got used to being seen as always wrong a long time ago. Besides, I’m married, so I’m used to being always wrong. JUST KIDDING! Plus, I understand you don’t believe this stuff – that’s ok. I love you anyway. I stopped posting because I try to have a conversation with Ed and you keep interrupting so that I am forced to address something waaaayy off of what Ed and I were talking about and it got so very tiring and time consuming. You find fallacious ways to answer just about everything I say. So, how can you talk with someone like that?

    Case in point:
    You said, “And if God somehow has a problem with that Christian for lying in that situation then God is a monster and doesn’t deserve to be worshipped or followed.”

    What a statement of absolutes! Perfect example here of what I mean – a fallacy of logic. It would take me six weeks of debate with you to get you to understand why. Why bother? You’re not listening, nor desire to learn. You want to slander evangelical Christians and so this is the perfect haven for you to do so. If you throw the accusation my way, just remember that the conversations I have had with Ed have been very educational and enlightening. I’ve learned more there than I can say. If you give me useful information, I will try and learn. It’s you I’ve never heard concede a point.

    Sum up for this example – your logic is a fallacy of the “either or”. Perhaps choice “c” or “d” or even “e” would be the most appropriate, but those weren’t presented. It was simply God must be ok with “lying in this situation of God is a monster.” What if God isn’t ok with lying but still isn’t a monster? What if God is devastated by the Nazi’s desire to murder Jews and is grieved that a follower of Jesus is forced to lie in order to save a life, but His anger is directed towards the Nazi for placing the Christian in that situation rather than the Christian?

    You also said, “Oh by the way phil, I didn’t call Lower a moron because he doesn’t accept evolution. So what you said there was nonsense too. I did say Lower was a moron for claiming that Creationism/ID is science and that it should be taught in science classes.”

    This is another reason I stopped posting – you put words into my mouth that I never said were there. If God created the world, wouldn’t that by definition be “supernatural” and would it also, by definition then be unscientific? No question about it – in the creation model you have a very unscientific event happen – the supernatural God creates the universe supernaturally out of nothing but His ability to create. It can’t be observed or repeated or falsified – not very scientific, then right? So, creation isn’t scientific in the sense that it can be tested, but…my contention is that science backs up the evidence for the need for such a supernatural event to occur – i.e. life had to come from something living and all effects have a cause. These principles I believe should be taught as science and actually believe they already are – just ignored when it comes to the origin of the universe/life. I also believe that children should be exposed to (educated – what a concept in school) on different popular world views (like ID/Creation/evolution) and then given the freedom to make their own choices for their own lives – not just shoved evolution as the ONLY scientific choice (which it isn’t even scientific anyway but a belief system based on the same evidence used to believe in ID/Creationism).

    Like

  16. Nick Kelsier says:

    Oh by the way phil, I didn’t call Lower a moron because he doesn’t accept evolution. So what you said there was nonsense too.

    I did say Lower was a moron for claiming that Creationism/ID is science and that it should be taught in science classes.

    If Lower wants to believe in Creationism/ID he is perfectly free too.

    He, however, is not free to claim that it’s science and should be taught as science.

    Like

  17. Nick Kelsier says:

    Phil, pay attention here.

    I’M A CHRISTIAN, SPECIFICIALLY A CATHOLIC. HAVE BEEN ALL MY LIFE, WILL BE ALL MY LIFE.

    In other words, Phil, I have by no means dismissed the possibility of God.

    I just accept the fact that God created the world and all life on it how the world and all life on it indicate rather then what a group of evangelical conservatives mistakenly interpret from a book written several thousand years ago by people trying to come up with an explanation for something they didn’t really have the knowledge to understand.

    And there is quite a lot of my fellow Christians who accept evolution for what it is…a tool that God used and continues to use.

    So you can apologize now, Phil, for your errant mistake.

    Unless of course you don’t and then you go from making a mistake to purposely lying. And not only that but you do it in the name of God and Christianity.

    Because if that’s the case then you not only get proven wrong in what you said…but you surrender the moral high ground too.

    So I’ll take that apology now.

    Like

  18. Phil says:

    Part of the difficulty here between Nick & Karatex vs Lowerleavell is the beginning assumptions. For Lower, the question is a difficult one (as it was indeed for the Christians faced with it during WWII) because he believes that there actually is a God. This creates a dilemma, because if there is a God who is good and tells you that deception is not one of his tools then you need to think seriously about stepping outside of his methods. Like CMI, Lower wants to save a life but the only question in his way is put there by the existince of God – take God away and there is no question. Nick/Karatex therefore see the situation as black and white because they have dismissed the possibility of a God. If God is not there and saving lives still matters to you, then obviously lying is the answer.

    The contrasting effect of the two world views is interesting. Lower presents his views as his views, explaining what the dilemma is for himself and fellow Christians because as in the lying example, he attempts to remain true to the character of Jesus, who pressured no one to believe Him. Nick/Karatex on the other hand have no such dilemma and the answer is black and white for them – Lower is an immoral moron unless he believes what they do. They are under no obligation to try and understand his point of view or exercise any form of tolerance because they don’t believe in an ultimate good. If they identify the ultimate good as the rejection of belief in a good God (which remember is the only difference here, both parties want to save a life), then any means necessary may be employed to reach that end. Any.

    Like

  19. Nick Kelsier says:

    Lower, you shouldn’t be mad at us for slandering AIG.

    You should be mad at AIG for slandering God, Jesus and the entirety of Christianity.

    Like

  20. Nick Kelsier says:

    Lower writes:
    So, I must disagree with AIG, but I don’t agree with how brutal you and P.Z. have been in slandering them for seeking to Biblically handle a really tough question.

    It isn’t a tough question at all, Lower. It’s one of the easiest moral questions possible. The only correct moral answer is to lie your head off in that situation. Equivocating on it…saying it’s a tough question is only a sign of either moral depravity or vapid amorality. And if God somehow has a problem with that Christian for lying in that situation then God is a monster and doesn’t deserve to be worshipped or followed.

    This is why I don’t play diplomat with you, Lower. You say the most preposterously stupid things. Faith sometimes requires one to make a sacrifice, Lower. But true faith never requires one to make a sacrifice of someone else.

    Like

  21. Karatex says:

    Lower,

    It is not “a really tough question” and the fact that your stupid Bible turns it into one serves as proof of your religion’s depravity.

    Like

  22. Nick Kelsier says:

    Tell me, Lower, what is he saying in that third paragraph if not what I said?

    Oh and by the way…the reason you quit posting on this blog was because you got tired of not being automatically seen as wise and correct. You got tired of being proven wrong at times.

    Like

  23. Nick Kelsier says:

    Apparently, Lower, you never wrote what the guy wrote. Here is it is:

    If we love God, we should obey Him (John 14:15). To love God first means to obey Him first–before looking at our neighbor. So, is the greater good trusting God when He says not to lie or trusting in our fallible, sinful minds about the uncertain future?

    Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don’t know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life–keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway.

    As Christians, we need to keep in mind that Jesus Christ reigns. All authority has been given to Him (Matthew 28:18), and He sits on the throne of God at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33; Hebrews 8:1). Nothing can happen without His say. Even Satan could not touch Peter without Christ’s approval (Luke 22:31). Regardless, if one were to lie or not, Jesus Christ is in control of timing every person’s life and able to discern our motives. It is not for us to worry over what might become, but rather to place our faith and obedience in Christ and to let Him do the reigning. For we do not know the future, whereas God has been telling the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).

    Like

  24. lowerleavell says:

    Nick, I appreciate your tempered words and grace in your posts and for reminding me why I had stopped writing here. I think if I said that 2+2=4 on this blog you’d find a way to disagree. However, I have no problem responding.

    Nick said, “Of course lower is conveniently ignoring that a large part of the justification for the Nazi’s in what they were doing was….wait for it…..the Bible.”

    You can justify anything you want with anything you want. Take things out of context in the Bible you get this: “Judas went and hanged himself….go and do likewise.” You can piece it together to make it say whatever you want. The Bible was used to justify the Crusades and the Inquisition – you’ll find no defender of those barberous acts here. That’s why the Bible can only mean what it was meant to say, not interpreting your “justifications” into it but rather drawing out the meaning from the text itself. And the text is completely contrary to Naziism. Show me where it says to kill Jews en mass and maybe your argument that the Nazis used it has some grounds. Otherwise, I dismiss your comment as invalid.

    You quoted: “Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don’t know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life–keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway.”

    Then you said, “Would you like a translation? He is saying “That since we don’t know that lying would in fact save the Jews life there is no point in lying. After all..the Nazi’s may search the house anyways.””

    He’s right in that you don’t know by lying if you are going to save the life. However, I disagree with Bodie because if you are harboring Jews in the first place, you’d already committed a “crime” to the Nazis. Shouldn’t the discussion be aimed there? It was illegal to harbor them. Therefore, to harbor them was lying by omission (not telling them they are there willingly). Frankly, if I were there, I’d probably try to be like Dietrich Bonhoeffer than anyone. So, I disagree with Bodie, as I’ve already said. But his point is valid that you don’t know until after the fact whether the lie will help or not. Telling them where the Jews are, etc. certainly would not help them live, but it’s true that you don’t know if it would keep the Nazis from finding them.

    You said, “He then goes onto say that nothing happens without Jesus’ approval. Meaning that regardless of whether you lie or not to save the Jews it doesn’t actually help save the Jews because whether the Jews die or not is up to Jesus and if they die at the hands of the Nazi’s then it’s under Jesus’ approval. That that was their destiny.”

    Nick, you’re reading into what he said…big time. You’re arguing from outside – let me share with you from the the perspective of one who is on the “inside”, ok? From a Christian perspective, everyone will die. Well…that’s not really a Christian perspective, it’s just true. :-) But the Christian perspective in that death is what happens after you die being the most important thing. Basically, you can save a Jew’s life, but if they reject Jesus, you’ve only delayed the inevitable. Yes, it’s the right thing to do to save their life, but their physical life isn’t their greatest priority – their eternal life is the greatest priority. “What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?” – Jesus. What you do with Jesus, to a Christian, is more important than life or death. That’s why you have had(and continue to in many countries) so many Christians who are martyred without putting up a resistance – it’s because they know that physical death is secured anyway, but their eternal destination is secure which killing the body cannot stop. So, I believe Bodie is saying that lying does not help this aspect of their eternal destination.

    He also never said the Holocaust happened because Jesus deemed it. Please provide a quote. If he did, I denounce it as dribble. But I am confident that he’s not saying that the Holocaust was Jesus’ idea. What nonsense is this? Could God have stopped the Holocaust? I believe He did – we won didn’t we? Having talked with dozens of WWII vets and getting their stories first hand, I believe the Allies’ victory was providentially gracious for all our stupid mistakes that let Hitler take power, get control of Europe, etc. Just thank God and thank a vet that you’re not speaking in German right now and can talk freely about what putrid crap the Nazi regime was.

    Like

  25. Nick Kelsier says:

    Of course lower is conveniently ignoring that a large part of the justification for the Nazi’s in what they were doing was….wait for it…..the Bible.

    And lower, where exactly did you miss Bodie saying this “Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don’t know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life–keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway.”

    Would you like a translation? He is saying “That since we don’t know that lying would in fact save the Jews life there is no point in lying. After all..the Nazi’s may search the house anyways.”

    He then goes onto say that nothing happens without Jesus’ approval. Meaning that regardless of whether you lie or not to save the Jews it doesn’t actually help save the Jews because whether the Jews die or not is up to Jesus and if they die at the hands of the Nazi’s then it’s under Jesus’ approval. That that was their destiny

    And you’re objecting to what Ed said? How about you object to what Bogie said because he said that the Holocaust happened because Jesus deemed it.

    He is saying there is no point in lying so therefor you shouldn’t lie.

    You seriously need to take the blinders off.

    Like

  26. lowerleavell says:

    Hey Ed,

    Just thought I’d check what you’ve been up to on your site and saw this thread and thought I’d say “hi.”

    Three thougths – one is that while I disagree with AIG in this, I don’t remember reading anywhere in their posts that if one lies he goes to Hell. I don’t see where they’re saying that if you lied to a Nazi then you’re going to Hell. I would ask that you retract that over-reaching “critique” of AIG. Biblically, people choose Hell because they do not trust in Jesus as their Savior, not simply because they lie. All lie – all sin. What separates people are those who have accepted God’s forgiveness and those who are still trying to earn “righteousness” on their own by their own standards. Choose not to believe that if you will, but that’s what the Bible says, i.e. John 3:36, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” (NIV)

    Second thought is that this is a very difficult subject for Christians. Which do you do? Lie to protect an innocent life or tell the truth to obey God? Situation ethics, if you will. People even in my congregation have brought it up to me several times. Some ask because they genuinely want to know the answer – most ask because they always think that their situation is the “exception” to the “lie clause.” People use this Nazi thing to justify their own lying, because no one thinks the “rule” applies to them – they’re always the exception. Anyway, my thought has always been that when the governement (here being the Nazis) tell you to do something that is unBiblical, you are under no obligation to obey (Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than human authority.” NLT). The Nazis were going to kill the Jews – so them asking someone to turn them in or not harbor them is truly an accesory to the crime. While I respect AIG’s attempt at being Biblical, and while this is one where good people have disagreed for a long time and will continue to do so, I personally do not believe that Scripture teaches it would be right to turn over Jews to the authorities. I like the third option that was given in this thread.

    Last, I’m surprised that I didn’t see anyone bring up Rahab who hid the Jewish spies in Jerico and then lied to the authorities about where they went. The spies certainly didn’t condemn her for lying, God never published a condmentation, and because of her helping them and trusting in the one true God, her whole household was spared from Jerico’s destruction. So, I must disagree with AIG, but I don’t agree with how brutal you and P.Z. have been in slandering them for seeking to Biblically handle a really tough question.

    Like

  27. Chunklets says:

    Drat. I meant “called for here,” obviously. More coffee may be called for at this point as well… :P

    Like

  28. Chunklets says:

    “As I said at P.Z.’s site, there was at least one French protestant minister who chose the third psoition: when the Nazi’s asked Pastor Andre Trocme if he was hiding Jews he told them he was, and wouldn’t say where.”

    Pastor Trocme, apparently unlike the AiG folks, was familiar with the works of Augustine, who dealt with the “Nazis knocking on the door” dilemma 1600 years ago in an essay helpfully entitled “On Lying.” Augustine’s conclusion was that the best solution to the dilemma was to do exactly what Trocme did; “How much braver then, how much more excellent, to say, ‘I will neither betray nor lie?'” says Augustine, citing the example of Bishop Firmus of Thagasta (It’s chapters 22 and 23 of “On Lying,” if you don’t feel like wading through the whole thing).

    More theology and less Bible-thumping is what is called of here, methinks.

    Like

  29. Rob Lopresti says:

    As I said at P.Z.’s site, there was at least one French protestant minister who chose the third psoition: when the Nazi’s asked Pastor Andre Trocme if he was hiding Jews he told them he was, and wouldn’t say where. He got away with it (as did the Jews) but his son was killed during the occupation. Read about it in a book called LEST INNOCENT BLOOD BE SHED.

    Like

  30. Ellie says:

    The exchange over at AIG just proves once again that today’s “conservative” Christians are adept at making Scripture say anything they want it to say.

    Jesus said, “Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his friend.” Sounds like suicide to me, so I guess Bodie Hodge would find a way around that one, also.

    Like

  31. survivor says:

    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%A7%D7%A8_%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%9F

    See
    http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?AID=9170&p=1&showrashi=true

    The Rashi commentary on the verse:
    although I am old: Scripture altered [her statement] for the sake of peace, for she had said,“and my master is old.” – [from B.M. 87a]

    See also discussion at
    http://www.daat.ac.il/mishpat-ivri/skirot/3-2.htm

    Like

  32. […] Read the original: Creationist: Murdering Jews may be preferable to lying to prevent … […]

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: