So what is the difference between Christians supposedly being allowed to deceive non-believers and the Islamic practice of Taqiyya? Only asking because this is the first forum I have been on where Christians are arguing so hard for justification to lie. I honestly thought that was a doctrine peculiar to Islam.
Also, wouldn't Ananias and Sapphira be a part of scripture where lying is condemned?
With this mindset, I would fear to have working relationships with some of you guys only to think that all that would be needed to be deceived by you is to convince yourselves that the means justify the ends.
Taqiyya, at least as I understand it, would be significantly more permissive than the view that some are arguing for here, even allowing Muslims to deny their own religious beliefs for the sake of saving their lives. No one here would advocate for that. Where exactly the lines should be drawn is, of course, a very difficult matter, and I agree with what Bruce said above that we ought to live the truth and be honest even to a fault. Whether or not "to a fault" means that we can never knowingly tell an untruth is a matter I've vacillated on for a long time, but I've recently come back around to what seems to be the majority position in this thread (noting that it doesn't seem to have been the majority position in all past threads on the same issue!).
Your Ananias and Sapphira example has already been adequately responded to. They were condemned for lying to God for their own advantage, not for lying
per se. I don't think it needs much argument to establish a distinction between lying to God for the sake of profit and reputation, on the one hand, and lying to the authorities of Jericho for the sake of aiding the Israelites spies (thereby casting Rahab's lot with God and his people), on the other. Even if both are actually sinful, they would not be sinful in precisely the same way.
Forgive me if I havent replied to specific people in every post. I dont always do that because I do not always find it necessary. But the problem I am having is looking at the posts, is there seems to be a kind of formulation of tiers where lying is be proffered as acceptable. i.e.
Lying to the Holy Spirit - Bad
Lying to other believers - Bad
Lying to non-believers - Possibly Good
Lying to enhance Gods Glory - Possibly Good
Lying to get out of trouble - Good
Lying for war - Good
Within this framework exists a realm of subjectivity that is, in my eyes dangerous once the base line of perpetual honestly is forgone. This is because people can easily convince themselves that their deception is for Gods glory, and thus justified. I think this would otherwise be known as politicking, and is always always condemned by the older writers (at least of whom I have read.) But we do see examples of this in contemporary Christianity, such as the Dr. Buice thing, where he convinced himself that deception was permitted to further Gods glory. This is why, I do not say that I fear working with someone who can justify deception (when they deem it permissible) just to say it, but instead, because there is no telling to those who think such what they will deem as worthy a cause to lie to advance.
I don't think such a framework is being offered at all. I think most here, at least, would generally agree that such a framework is far too neat, anyway. And certainly no one here would justify lying to unbelievers simply because they are unbelievers. Nor do I believe anyone here has argued that we may lie to enhance God's glory (note that a distinction has been made between lying to promote good and lying to prevent evil). I haven't seen an argument that lying to get out of trouble is categorically good (at most would fall into possibly good), and lying in war merely because it's war isn't any more justified than killing in war merely because it's war. Not all wars are just, nor are all killings in warfare just on the mere basis of the war itself being just. Surely the same applies to deceit in the context of warfare.
If there is any sort of framework being offered here, it is not one of the ends justifying the means. I think that sometimes that
is the justification that is offered for lying, and that's a problem. But it is a different matter to argue that there are cases in which someone has forfeited their right to the truth, just as there are cases in which someone has forfeited their right to life, freedom, or property.
so/9780190459208.003.0008
