Translation & More

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Why do they purposely misrepresent such things?

Because they have to. The "Christians on Campus" websites I've seen are extremely misleading, in what they say, and what they (quite deliberately) don't say. If you push them in a corner they'll admit that they're actually only "affiliated" with one ministry, a ministry which allows no affiliation with any other ministry, and unquestioned obedience to it alone (i.e. "oneness").

But if you push the LC Campus Worker in the corner to get at the true truth (vs LC truth), chances are you weren't "good building material" anyway. The misleading websites thus can be used to peel away the gullible and unquestioning ones out of the larger flock. Get them to a meeting where with 10 True Believers and one or two newbies, coerce a charismatic/emotional "Christ in the local church" moment and they're on the way. Next, make them a recruiter, which will further cement their status.

Back to my initial point, the LC response would be that testallthings' inability to take WL's teaching on face value indicates some unresolved darkness or intransigence. The LC always reflects attention away from critical examination, which they call being negative, accusatory, dark, divisive, etc. Any problem always lies with the recipient, not the message.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Back to my initial point, the LC response would be that testallthings' inability to take WL's teaching on face value indicates some unresolved darkness or intransigence. The LC always reflects attention away from critical examination, which they call being negative, accusatory, dark, divisive, etc. Any problem always lies with the recipient, not the message.

Those in the LC who read this forum like the blendeds and DCP, might try to portray us as purposely 'misunderstanding' what WL taught. I notice that from the quote of WL, he pleads with his audience saying "do not misunderstand me". When I read this excerpt, there was only one understanding that I walked away with, and that is of course, knowing that WL claimed that it is okay to lie in certain situations. That understanding has nothing to do with trying to understand WL a certain way. For the average reader, it should be a bit disturbing to read something like this.

Based on such concerns, there is an ever-apparent need to address and discuss such things publicly. If there are a good number of people who can't take WL's teaching at face value, then that is indication that he either didn't make himself clear, or that his teachings should be put under the microscope for further examination. If WL's teachings were fully orthodox and could proven to be so, then the LC would have nothing to lose by addressing these things in a forthright manner.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Those in the LC who read this forum like the blendeds and DCP, might try to portray us as purposely 'misunderstanding' what WL taught. I notice that from the quote of WL, he pleads with his audience saying "do not misunderstand me". When I read this excerpt, there was only one understanding that I walked away with, and that is of course, knowing that WL claimed that it is okay to lie in certain situations.

The Bible provides a case study in moral or civil (dis)obedience. In Acts 5.29, Peter told the authorities, "it is necessary to obey God rather than man." Concerning Lee's comment about a "pure lie," why even go there? Why even suggest that "a lie is not a lie if it's pure." Think about how many "back door escapes" Witness Lee just provided. His only caveat is "do not misunderstand me."

This reminds me of an old LC'er who told me that we have to "lie" to our spouses. "I do it all the time," he said, "I tell her every day how beautiful she is!"

[OBW]

As usual, there is a fly in the ointment. The Bible technically does not say "do not lie." It says do not bear false witness. That is a specific kind of lie. It is to knowingly speak wrongly about someone else. It is not simply to speak an untruth.

Do not misunderstand. I am not making the general telling of lies OK.

But there are surely times when a form a lie is acceptable. Do you think that the spies that went in to take a look at the Good Land simply admitted that they were from that huge group of people approaching the borders? No. They kept their origins hidden in whatever way possible. That is a form of lie.

And every man knows that there is no safe answer to the question like "does this dress make me look fat"?". The only semi-safe answer is no answer. And sometimes we have to speak and to avoid hurting feelings, we say less than the whole truth.

Having said that, I am not sure that telling your parents that you are going somewhere that you are not is an acceptable lie. It is really no different that saying that you are going to a science study group when you know that you will instead be at a wild party where underage drinking will be the norm. When someone is not of legal age, they are under the control of their parents. Unless that control somehow becomes illegal, there is no special rule that makes disobedience right because you think the objective of the disobedience is right. The problem with Lee's "pure lie" is that it is not only a lie, but disobedience. Something that is forbidden by the Bible.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

As usual, there is a fly in the ointment. The Bible technically does not say "do not lie." It says do not bear false witness. That is a specific kind of lie. It is to knowingly speak wrongly about someone else. It is not simply to speak an untruth.

I disagree. The Bible explicitly says to not lie:
Prov 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who deal truthfully are His delight.
Col 3:9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds

Originally Posted by OBW

Do not misunderstand. I am not making the general telling of lies OK.

But there are surely times when a form a lie is acceptable. Do you think that the spies that went in to take a look at the Good Land simply admitted that they were from that huge group of people approaching the borders? No. They kept their origins hidden in whatever way possible. That is a form of lie.

And every man knows that there is no safe answer to the question like "does this dress make me look fat"?". The only semi-safe answer is no answer. And sometimes we have to speak and to avoid hurting feelings, we say less than the whole truth.

Honesty is valued by many non-Christians so I think the point is that Christians should be beyond reproach in the matter. In most cases, I see the issue as not intentionally trying to deceive people. The spies were commanded by God to spy out the land, so the 'deception' involved was not their own idea.

When it comes to white lies, there is admittedly a lot of grey area. I don't think it is advisable, but it is also not problematic. It is part of being human. In a perfect world it would be nice if the truth didn't hurt, it would be nice to not worry that being honest could lead to hurt feelings. But padding the truth is often necessary. Necessary at work, at home, around friends, etc.

Originally Posted by OBW

Having said that, I am not sure that telling your parents that you are going somewhere that you are not is an acceptable lie. It is really no different that saying that you are going to a science study group when you know that you will instead be at a wild party where underage drinking will be the norm. When someone is not of legal age, they are under the control of their parents. Unless that control somehow becomes illegal, there is no special rule that makes disobedience right because you think the objective of the disobedience is right. The problem with Lee's "pure lie" is that it is not only a lie, but disobedience. Something that is forbidden by the Bible.

I agree here. Disobedience to parents is wrong, except in rare cases. If WL wanted to claim there were something as a "pure lie" there are a lot of grey areas that don't involve something like disobedience. He picked the wrong issue to use to make this claim.

[HERn]

And every man knows that there is no safe answer to the question like "does this dress make me look fat"?". The only semi-safe answer is no answer. And sometimes we have to speak and to avoid hurting feelings, we say less than the whole truth.

Here's the best answer. "Darling, seeing you in that dress makes me want to take you in my arms and have my way with you". If you don't get slapped, then the night is yours!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

And every man knows that there is no safe answer to the question like "does this dress make me look fat"?". The only semi-safe answer is no answer. And sometimes we have to speak and to avoid hurting feelings, we say less than the whole truth.

Here's the best answer. "Darling, seeing you in that dress makes me want to take you in my arms and have my way with you". If you don't get slapped, then the night is yours!

"Have my way with you?" That would never work around here.

No answer is not a safe answer. Even a slight hesitation means trouble!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I disagree. The Bible explicitly says to not lie:
Prov 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who deal truthfully are His delight.
Col 3:9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds

Then maybe the problem is that we disagree on the definition of "lie." If it is anything said that in any way alters the perception of truth, then withholding any information so that someone might not be angry with you is a lie. And under some definitions that is what a lie is. On the other hand, if it is strictly something said for the purpose of deceiving someone in a manner that causes them to know, understand, or react to [whatever] in an incorrect manner, then maybe the withholding of information may not be a lie.

Do you really think that actually saying "Honey, the dress is not at fault — you are simply fat) is the right thing to do? That may be the only truthful answer. Are you suggesting that being judicious in your use of words is to lie?

I believe that the implication in both passages is that there are falsehoods used that work to harm the other. Not simply that something less than the whole truth was said. But since it does not clearly say that, it is an opinion.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

Then maybe the problem is that we disagree on the definition of "lie." If it is anything said that in any way alters the perception of truth, then withholding any information so that someone might not be angry with you is a lie. And under some definitions that is what a lie is. On the other hand, if it is strictly something said for the purpose of deceiving someone in a manner that causes them to know, understand, or react to [whatever] in an incorrect manner, then maybe the withholding of information may not be a lie.

According the the Bible, I think that a lie can potentially be any sort of untruth. That part is not entirely clear. Notice though, that my reply was regarding a statement that you made: "The Bible technically does not say "do not lie." It says do not bear false witness. That is a specific kind of lie." I was primarily reacting to that statement. I do not see where the Bible limits the scope of lying to only bearing false witness. Maybe within the context of the 10 commandments yes, but that was not the context of the discussion that was taking place beforehand.

Like I posted yesterday, I see the intention to deceive as the main type of lie that Bible is concerned with. Christians shouldn't be actively seeking to deceive others.

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you really think that actually saying "Honey, the dress is not at fault — you are simply fat) is the right thing to do? That may be the only truthful answer. Are you suggesting that being judicious in your use of words is to lie?

This is why I stated yesterday that there is a lot of grey area. Yes, we should be judicious with our words, but even that can backfire sometimes. For that reason I would not be so quick to assume that a lie is justified by someone's inability to handle the truth. There are times that the truth is needed despite the possibility that it might hurt someones feelings. There are other times when the truth could be used with ill motives, such as if a man were to purposely call his wife fat.

If the truth is used to provoke a negative reaction, then yes, it is wrong. It is wrong based on the motive. In your example, the use of the partial truth or a lie is almost always justified. But in other examples, the opposite might be true. Examples all have their limitations.