Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One day, a good Christian was sat under a tree in the woods. A young woman ran up, in distress. She said three men had tried to rape her. She asked the Christian to cover for her, while she hid in a large thicket nearby.
After a few minutes, three men ran up. They asked the Christian if he had seen a young woman. He said yes. They asked if he knew where she went. He said yes. They asked if she had run down the pathway. He said no. They asked if she had climbed a tree. He said no. They asked if she was hiding in the thicket. He said yes.
Now, did he do the right thing, or the wrong thing?
He did the wrong thing because he had promised the woman he would hide her, so he lied to her.
The right thing that still would have protected her would have been to say, "I will not tell you," to each question they asked. That would have been the "right" thing, not just from a Christian standpoint but from any moral standpoint. It might not have been the most self-protecting thing because they could have beaten the snot out of him for refusing to answer. But that's beside the point. You asked which would be right.
The following is not a Christian story, it's a Buddhist one, but it addresses your question (I feel, anyway). It also, to my mind, satisfies the question of what the "right" thing is. I think the "right" thing is what's right at the time, based on your own inner guidance. The way this ties into your scenario above is that rules are *just starting off points*. In fact, if you take rules literally to the letter in every possible scenario you could actually use this to manipulate or harm (as I think the Pharasees kept doing to Jesus with their "entrapment"-type questions...this based on my limited knowledge of the bible.)
Okay, so, here's the story, highly paraphrased because I'm too lazy to Google it and get the direct quote. Anyway, one of Siddhartha the Buddha's students once asked him, "Master, suppose I walk past a lake and see a man drowning in it. Shouldn't I walk on by? It might be that man's karma to drown."
"It might be," Buddha agreed readily. "And on the other hand, it might be your karma to save a drowning man."
What he was saying is, "You're so stuck on the 'rules'. Rules are basically for children...newbies...rules are black-and-white so that when you *begin* to understand, there aren't any details to confuse you. But as you walk through life, you must take your accumulated knowledge and apply it to the situation at hand...not stick to dogma as if it's a lifeboat and you're in the sea. Think...for...yourself."
Putting it in a Christian perspective as far as I understand things, being a non-Christian and all, even Jesus said this. He was accused of going against God's laws by healing on the sabbath. Healing is a form of work, and God commanded rest on the Sabbath. NO work of any kind that day...period. Right? Jesus basically said, "Duh, idiots, are you kidding me? If your sheep were to fall into a ditch on the Sabbath, wouldn't you pull it out? I mean what the freak?" (Well, I'm pretty sure this isn't the literal scripture. Jesus wouldn't have said 'what the freak'...he was from the Middle East, not the East Coast.) Anyway, the idea here is, DUH, THINK FOR YOURSELVES. Life *does* have plenty of shades of gray. You *do* have to sometimes rely on your own mind and your own instincts and morals...not on the words of some book. I find it really ironic that of all people, Jesus seems to be one of the religious leaders of the world who least approved of organized religion. Food for thought.
Last edited by JerZ; 05-17-2007 at 12:19 AM..
Reason: Clarification...sentence didn't make sense
They asked if she had climbed a tree. He said no. They asked if she was hiding in the thicket. He said yes.
Now, did he do the right thing, or the wrong thing?
You didn't finish the story.
Did the man whip out his sword and kill the men?
Did he convert the men?
Did he beat the men?
Did God strike them down? Did he save the woman?
How does the story end?
Why didn't they just shortcut the conversation and ask directly where she was hiding?
How many thickets were nearby?
Did he really see the woman hiding in the thicket, or did she sneak away?
Was the Christian certain that these were the three men the woman was talking about?
Was the Christian certain that the woman he saw was the woman the men were looking for?
Well, this addressed simply the dilemna of "is it ever morally correct to lie?"
A few years ago, I would have said no, it isn't. Today I would say there are a few EXTREMELY limited circumstances which would be an exception to this moral principle. For example, during WWII, you are hiding Jews in your attic and Nazis come to your door and ask if you are hiding Jews....IMHO, say NO!
Having said this, let me also say to balance it, that "lying" is extremely repugnant to me. In ALMOST all cases, it would be considered sinful by God. I think there are examples in the Bible, however, in which God seemingly approves of a "deception" if there is moral reason for it.
He did the wrong thing because he had promised the woman he would hide her, so he lied to her.
The right thing that still would have protected her would have been to say, "I will not tell you," to each question they asked. That would have been the "right" thing, not just from a Christian standpoint but from any moral standpoint. It might not have been the most self-protecting thing because they could have beaten the snot out of him for refusing to answer. But that's beside the point. You asked which would be right.
The following is not a Christian story, it's a Buddhist one, but it addresses your question (I feel, anyway). It also, to my mind, satisfies the question of what the "right" thing is. I think the "right" thing is what's right at the time, based on your own inner guidance. The way this ties into your scenario above is that rules are *just starting off points*. In fact, if you take rules literally to the letter in every possible scenario you could actually use this to manipulate or harm (as I think the Pharasees kept doing to Jesus with their "entrapment"-type questions...this based on my limited knowledge of the bible.)
Okay, so, here's the story, highly paraphrased because I'm too lazy to Google it and get the direct quote. Anyway, one of Siddhartha the Buddha's students once asked him, "Master, suppose I walk past a lake and see a man drowning in it. Shouldn't I walk on by? It might be that man's karma to drown."
"It might be," Buddha agreed readily. "And on the other hand, it might be your karma to save a drowning man."
What he was saying is, "You're so stuck on the 'rules'. Rules are basically for children...newbies...rules are black-and-white so that when you *begin* to understand, there aren't any details to confuse you. But as you walk through life, you must take your accumulated knowledge and apply it to the situation at hand...not stick to dogma as if it's a lifeboat and you're in the sea. Think...for...yourself."
Putting it in a Christian perspective as far as I understand things, being a non-Christian and all, even Jesus said this. He was accused of going against God's laws by healing on the sabbath. Healing is a form of work, and God commanded rest on the Sabbath. NO work of any kind that day...period. Right? Jesus basically said, "Duh, idiots, are you kidding me? If your sheep were to fall into a ditch on the Sabbath, wouldn't you pull it out? I mean what the freak?" (Well, I'm pretty sure this isn't the literal scripture. Jesus wouldn't have said 'what the freak'...he was from the Middle East, not the East Coast.) Anyway, the idea here is, DUH, THINK FOR YOURSELVES. Life *does* have plenty of shades of gray. You *do* have to sometimes rely on your own mind and your own instincts and morals...not on the words of some book. I find it really ironic that of all people, Jesus seems to be one of the religious leaders of the world who least approved of organized religion. Food for thought.
Your last paragraph here was really good, Jerz! I think that is a VERY good characterization of how Jesus operated. Obviously, we do start with "principles" but we DO have to use wisdom (I would say, wisdom from God) on how to apply them. ( Not to say that there aren't some moral absolutes, of course!!!!!)
Were the three men armed? Did the Christian have a cell phone? Useless and endless debates in yet another attempt to discredit Christians and their believes. Personally I would have found a big club and helped her find a better place to hide, and if provoked used the big club on the men with all my might-lol
He did the wrong thing because he had promised the woman he would hide her, so he lied to her.
The right thing that still would have protected her would have been to say, "I will not tell you," to each question they asked. That would have been the "right" thing, not just from a Christian standpoint but from any moral standpoint. It might not have been the most self-protecting thing because they could have beaten the snot out of him for refusing to answer. But that's beside the point. You asked which would be right.
The following is not a Christian story, it's a Buddhist one, but it addresses your question (I feel, anyway). It also, to my mind, satisfies the question of what the "right" thing is. I think the "right" thing is what's right at the time, based on your own inner guidance. The way this ties into your scenario above is that rules are *just starting off points*. In fact, if you take rules literally to the letter in every possible scenario you could actually use this to manipulate or harm (as I think the Pharasees kept doing to Jesus with their "entrapment"-type questions...this based on my limited knowledge of the bible.)
Okay, so, here's the story, highly paraphrased because I'm too lazy to Google it and get the direct quote. Anyway, one of Siddhartha the Buddha's students once asked him, "Master, suppose I walk past a lake and see a man drowning in it. Shouldn't I walk on by? It might be that man's karma to drown."
"It might be," Buddha agreed readily. "And on the other hand, it might be your karma to save a drowning man."
What he was saying is, "You're so stuck on the 'rules'. Rules are basically for children...newbies...rules are black-and-white so that when you *begin* to understand, there aren't any details to confuse you. But as you walk through life, you must take your accumulated knowledge and apply it to the situation at hand...not stick to dogma as if it's a lifeboat and you're in the sea. Think...for...yourself."
Putting it in a Christian perspective as far as I understand things, being a non-Christian and all, even Jesus said this. He was accused of going against God's laws by healing on the sabbath. Healing is a form of work, and God commanded rest on the Sabbath. NO work of any kind that day...period. Right? Jesus basically said, "Duh, idiots, are you kidding me? If your sheep were to fall into a ditch on the Sabbath, wouldn't you pull it out? I mean what the freak?" (Well, I'm pretty sure this isn't the literal scripture. Jesus wouldn't have said 'what the freak'...he was from the Middle East, not the East Coast.) Anyway, the idea here is, DUH, THINK FOR YOURSELVES. Life *does* have plenty of shades of gray. You *do* have to sometimes rely on your own mind and your own instincts and morals...not on the words of some book. I find it really ironic that of all people, Jesus seems to be one of the religious leaders of the world who least approved of organized religion. Food for thought.
Were the three men armed? Did the Christian have a cell phone? Useless and endless debates in yet another attempt to discredit Christians and their believes. Personally I would have found a big club and helped her find a better place to hide, and if provoked used the big club on the men with all my might-lol
LOL!
Yes, I agree that this IS another attempt just to discredit Christians
But it does, I think, tease out the implications of how wisdom is applied. And maybe that's a good thing.
Maybe he could say something like "I'm sorry, I was asleep" because, although that gives the wrong impression, I'm sure he was, at some point in time, asleep. Now, if he said "I was asleep when she passed by here" then he would be lying
Or he could answer truthfully that he saw where she went but refuse to tell them where. He would probably get beat up, but I guess that's the price one pays, I would proably go with the first one though.
Gee, does that really even deserve being dignified with an answer?
NO it doesn't
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Food for thought.
Is lying ever right???
( Not to say that there aren't some moral absolutes, of course!!!!!)
