Would this lie count as sin?

by Knowsnothing 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Knowsnothing

  http://edgeofcivilization.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/lies-and-politics/

  The story however starts years earlier when Themistocles, a politician and general campaigned for money to build a stronger navy against a probable Persian attack. The Athenians didn’t believe him – comfort, complacent and confident. And most importantly, they’d rather increase their personal wealth of Athenians than do anything to protect the common good.

  Feeling strongly the need for a stronger navy, Themistocles did what many politicians have done

  throughout the centuries; he lied. He told the

  Athenians the small island of Aegina was planning to attack merchant ships, and they need to invest in the navy to protect their commerce. The Athenians agreed to give money to Themistocles’ navy.

  Themistocles was proven just when he had built a significant navy to battle Persians forces. The interesting thing to note is Themistocles lie to the Athenians may have saved Ancient Greek civilization. Had the Persians won decisive victories at sea against Themistocles and beaten King Leonidas our modern world culture may be significantly different.
• 

  tec

  A lie is a sin, as I understand it. Love does cover over a multitude of sins though.

  (sort of like how Christ covers our sins)

  Nor is a lie an unforgivable sin.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Why, tammy? He saved the Athenians an unwanted invasion. Was there any other way to get them motivated to build a navy? Perhaps. Was there much time left for action? No. What exactly does he need to be forgiven for, saving his apatheic people through the use of deception?
• 

  elderelite

  Unfortunatly one would have to understand the battle of thermopoly and the role the navy (under themostcles) played. Even though it was, technically, a loss it set the stage for the eventual victory of the greek city states and all that flowed from it. In fact, if one believes the bible, that victory was fulfillment of prophcy. Since that lie lead directly to the fillfilment of phrophcy it has gods approval, yes?
• 

  tec

  Well, it can be easy to tell one lie and convince yourself that it is for the good of people... then continue on to tell more.

  Plus... the invasion was probable, the claim goes. What if it was not going to happen, and the building of the army spurred it on. What if it was not going to happen, and he convinced everyone that it was going to happen, and then instead of defending against an enemy, they invaded? Or something else happened to harm someone innocent, because of that lie?

  He was proven right... or so the story goes... but how many instances of that go the other way? How many will justifiy their own deception (and would have been wrong) from this sort of thing?

  You know the saying... oh what a tangled web we weave...?

  Regardless, love can cover over a multitude of sins, as stated. Such as telling a dying loved one that you will see them in paradise, or something, when you don't believe in paradise... out of love and to offer comfort. That covers over the sin; in a sense 'voiding' the sin.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  sizemik

  Abraham lied saying Sarah was his sister to protect her. Jahoober was cool with it as I remember. Some say he didn't lie because Sarah was his half sister . . . but he didn't say that. His intent was to conceal the truth . . . to deceive. So you have to allow for a technicality to violate the principle. Theocratic warfare is the concept I believe . . . and that technicality can even justify concealing sexual abuse. Technicalities create faulty concepts which can be used for harm as well as good. The principle of aleviating harm and facilitating good stands alone, as superior to flawed concepts.
• 

  tec

  I do not personally believe in theocratic warfare. It is deceitful... claiming to have the truth (or be the truth) and then using deceit to protect yourself? Makes no sense to me at all.

  Technicalities create faulty concepts which can be used for harm as well as good.

  Agreed. A sometimes slippery slope.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  sizemik

  Tammy . . . I always believed that "love covers a multitude of sins" was in reference to extending forgiveness quickly when warranted, to avoid unnecessary conflict over relatively trivial matters . . . rather than a provision for arbitrary deceit.
• 

  tec

  Interesting Size, and you're right. Love does do that, and the context in 1peter seems to imply that. I think Christ also did this for us... his love for us... forgave our sins against Him (and one another, since His command is to love one another, to forgive and show mercy to one another)

  I think many things can also be understood and forgiven when/if they are done out of love. Perhaps not all things though. Something that is done out of love, or an act that stems from love... perhaps that is not a sin. Or perhaps it is just not an unforgivable sin. I believe i will think and pray upon this.

  Appreciate that perspective, thanks.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  sizemik

  I think what you're saying is essentially right Tammy

  Love (or the desire to do good and avoid harm) is a guiding principle. As soon as we define to make a rule . . . we find ourselves having to make exceptions on technicalities. That to me is the slippery slope. When we go back to the principle . . . the way forward is more simple, and a good outcome can be accomplished without hesitation, harm or guilt . . . or the need for forgiveness.