Just where can we find an explicit command to "wear clothes?"
"In the beginning" clothes seem to be a contingency for the shame the man and woman felt after they had sinned. From then on it seems we've all just assumed that we are supposed to feel the same shame of our own nakedness.
Oops... looks like AFF is going down yet another slippery slope just because they all want to some how disprove the importance of the dress code standards.
But if we are forgiven of all our sins then shouldn't we not feel the shame of our own nakedness... Just saying... Maybe this is just a doctrine we can teach for the ladies... we could even tie it in with their hair being their covering so they don't need anymore JKJKJK
Making the truth dance a fine jig... that is something else entirely. And withholding information isn't a lie.
But if you're trying to make someone believe something that isn't true, that's deception, isn't it? Which is a lie by your actions. If you say the word 'no', or act the word 'no', is there a difference?
You know, the Ten Commandments addresses lying in this way:
'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
That's an interesting way to put it. Doesn't seem to prohibit hiding the Jews from Nazis.
But if you're trying to make someone believe something that isn't true, that's deception, isn't it? Which is a lie by your actions. If you say the word 'no', or act the word 'no', is there a difference?
You know, the Ten Commandments addresses lying in this way:
'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
That's an interesting way to put it. Doesn't seem to prohibit hiding the Jews from Nazis.
In the "gray areas" truth is mostly a matter of perception on the part of the hearer.
If I don't want to hurt your feelings or harm the reputation of someone els and to do so I make the truth walk a highwire and your perception of truth and the truth I am making dance differ... oh well. I am not responsible for what you extract from my words. Jesus wrapped truth inside parables, that those hearing would not hear. Was he being deceptive?
Yes, he was. But then there are no biblical precepts about transparency. He himself instructed us both to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. Wisdom sometimes means not letting others know everything you are about, being harmless sometimes means making the truth dance in consideration of another's feelings.
He also told us not to let our right hand know what the left is doing. That means one hand is being deceived as to the motives and intents of the other.
Telling and out and out lie is wrong, but disguising details, while maybe deceptive, is not.
There is always a way.
Does this dress make me look fat?
"You look wonderful in that dress!" (meanwhile the truth being danced around might be.. "You look fat no matter what you put on, but I love you and you look wonderful to me no matter what you put on."
How was that pie?
That pie was everything I hoped it could be and I enjoyed it.
(I expected that pie would be so nasty that I wouldn't eat it with your mouth, and throwing it at a tree was so enjoyable it made my day)
We all want to be moral people but sometimes there are shades of gray. Outside the realm of normalcy lies an area where our convictions are tested.
Is it ethical to lie to a liar? What if a terrorist asked you where your child was hiding and you didn't want your child to be found?
It is ethical to steal from a stealer? What if this person was the government and they were taking food out of your childrens mouths. Would you cheat on your taxes to feed them?
What if your boss told you to mail an unethical email. Would just mail an email and said you sent an email and evade the issue that the content was not in it?
I heard a story about a pastor once who was given pies by a woman who was filthy. He took it out back, put an X on the ground and threw the pie on it. He then told the woman, "That hit the spot sister!"
If you did these things, would that mean your convictions had changed? Or would it mean you made an exception to your convictions.
So, when and where do YOU draw the line on it's okay to fudge a little.
My strongest conviction on these instances is "love your neighbor as yourself" and "do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
By responding kindly, even if that meant not saying exactly how I felt, I would feel that I was actually following my convictions completely.
With the boss question, I would simply explain that I could not send that e-mail as phrased. If it was truly unethical, he would probably not want to terminate me for it, because he wouldn't want to risk it making headlines.
With the government question, I don't know. I would do everything I could to avoid cheating on my taxes, because I know what the penalties are for that.
__________________
What we make of the Bible will never be as great a thing as what the Bible will - if we let it - make of us.~Rich Mullins
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.~Galileo Galilei
We all want to be moral people but sometimes there are shades of gray. Outside the realm of normalcy lies an area where our convictions are tested.
Is it ethical to lie to a liar? What if a terrorist asked you where your child was hiding and you didn't want your child to be found?
It is ethical to steal from a stealer? What if this person was the government and they were taking food out of your childrens mouths. Would you cheat on your taxes to feed them?
What if your boss told you to mail an unethical email. Would just mail an email and said you sent an email and evade the issue that the content was not in it?
I heard a story about a pastor once who was given pies by a woman who was filthy. He took it out back, put an X on the ground and threw the pie on it. He then told the woman, "That hit the spot sister!"
If you did these things, would that mean your convictions had changed? Or would it mean you made an exception to your convictions.
So, when and where do YOU draw the line on it's okay to fudge a little.
I have had a certain manager tell me to tell a customer untruths. I told him that he could but I would not. It didn't go any further than that. He told him and that was that.
As far as trying to tell the truth without actually telling the truth, as in the case of the pastor, if the intent is to deceive, then it is a deception no matter how "technically" true it is. That is my thoughts on it.
JKJKJK
Linear Mode
