It speaks for itself. This stuff is hilarious. Because it what it says we know is true.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
The Rise of India
ABCNews did a feature on India when Bush visited, and I just found it. It's a great balanced outsiders view of where India is today, and what India can be in 50 years. It's more complicated, sure, but this guy doesn't have the usual bias.
Snippet:
"You see an explosion of 50 years of pent up aspirations. If you want to know what India feels like today, it's very simple. Pull out a Champagne bottle, shake it for an hour, then take the cork off. You don't want to get in the way of that cork."
Monday, April 24, 2006
Mallu Humor of the Day
There's a state in India, down south, called Kerala. It is known as God's own country. The language they speak (they claim) is The Heavenly Language. Well their accents are heavenly too. We lovingly call these folks "Mallus" (short for malayalis, their language is called malayalam)
This clip takes the cake. Don't listen if you have respiratory trouble or heart problems, The laughing might kill you. (So... is that a lie? lol)
Mallu Hot Stepper
*thanks Sarah!
This clip takes the cake. Don't listen if you have respiratory trouble or heart problems, The laughing might kill you. (So... is that a lie? lol)
Mallu Hot Stepper
*thanks Sarah!
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Lying and the Bible - Part 1/3
In a recent conversation with a good friend, the age old issue of whether lying is ever justified was raised, and later I felt like I needed to do a systematic approach in the understanding of the matter.
In addition, I don't want to trust just my own intellect, which is my tendency. Where spiritual matters are concerned, as much as I can I want to rely on the Word of God. If it is undogmatic, I want to be undogmatic. If it is clear, there I want to take a stand.
Outright, I am of the opinion that lying is not justified. But rather than start from that presupposition and give a list of proofs, I want to try and use scripture to gain an understanding. Scripture first, then hypotheses. Of course, my biases probably will show through, but I hope as a whole the logic will be unblemised.
Some Fundamentals
What does the Bible say about lying?
A few passages come to mind.
There are a lot more passages about this throughout scripture, but I think these are sufficient to get an idea that we are commanded not to lie, and that lying is s sin.
God is a God of truth. But as His children, we we are urged to imitate God.
God is our standard for morality. If he is perfectly holy, then we are called to be perfectly holy (whether we can be is not the issue, what we are commanded is). Our sanctification is the process of us becoming like Christ in all his perfection.
The standard is very high. Immediately I realize I cannot attain it. But the difficulty does not mean I stop working out my salvation with fear and trembling. Why? Because it is GOD who is at work in me, not my own effort, so that I can will and act for his good pleasure. I'm not alone in this endeavour (Phil 2:12,13), This is a wonderful manifestation of Grace.
Hang on you say, what about the exceptions? Well, I'm trying to do this a step at a time, and exceptions or complications, however you want to call it, will come later.
So what is a lie? Starting with the bare bone definition, a lie is an active action. You lie simply when you speak what is not true. Even when we speak of "not telling the truth" we are usually not talking about a passive witholding of information, but of untruth being spoken. This is the first aspect of the issue that I want to deal with.
So far, my simple mind is devoid of further issue and I'm happy to submit to scripture - speaking untruth is forbidden. I want to be like Jesus, and this is his demand. I cannot lie. the issue is so far uncomplicated.
In addition, I don't want to trust just my own intellect, which is my tendency. Where spiritual matters are concerned, as much as I can I want to rely on the Word of God. If it is undogmatic, I want to be undogmatic. If it is clear, there I want to take a stand.
Outright, I am of the opinion that lying is not justified. But rather than start from that presupposition and give a list of proofs, I want to try and use scripture to gain an understanding. Scripture first, then hypotheses. Of course, my biases probably will show through, but I hope as a whole the logic will be unblemised.
Some Fundamentals
What does the Bible say about lying?
A few passages come to mind.
Exodus 20:16 - You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Titus 1:2 - in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began.
Heb 6:18 - so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.
Rev 21:8 8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.
There are a lot more passages about this throughout scripture, but I think these are sufficient to get an idea that we are commanded not to lie, and that lying is s sin.
God is a God of truth. But as His children, we we are urged to imitate God.
1 Cor 11:1 - Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
1 Peter 1:16 - since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”
God is our standard for morality. If he is perfectly holy, then we are called to be perfectly holy (whether we can be is not the issue, what we are commanded is). Our sanctification is the process of us becoming like Christ in all his perfection.
The standard is very high. Immediately I realize I cannot attain it. But the difficulty does not mean I stop working out my salvation with fear and trembling. Why? Because it is GOD who is at work in me, not my own effort, so that I can will and act for his good pleasure. I'm not alone in this endeavour (Phil 2:12,13), This is a wonderful manifestation of Grace.
Hang on you say, what about the exceptions? Well, I'm trying to do this a step at a time, and exceptions or complications, however you want to call it, will come later.
So what is a lie? Starting with the bare bone definition, a lie is an active action. You lie simply when you speak what is not true. Even when we speak of "not telling the truth" we are usually not talking about a passive witholding of information, but of untruth being spoken. This is the first aspect of the issue that I want to deal with.
So far, my simple mind is devoid of further issue and I'm happy to submit to scripture - speaking untruth is forbidden. I want to be like Jesus, and this is his demand. I cannot lie. the issue is so far uncomplicated.
Lying and the Bible - Part 2/3
Exceptions?
The first rude awakening occurs when the accounts of Rahab and the Egyptian midwives are thrown at me. Both are examples of people who spoke actual untruth. Both were commended in some way by God. The question is raised whether this can be used as an exception to God's rule of lying.
Rahab: Joshua 2 tells us a wonderful story of God's eternal Grace. A prostitute saw the glory of God through His works for Israel, and she believed. I love verse 11.
There are two verses that raise questions. The first on is Hebrews 11:31.
The second passage about Rahab could raise a few more questions.
a. What is the passage about?
We find a clue about this from verse 14 of the same chapter
b. So why this controversial person as an example?
Why Rahab? Does her inclusion beside Abraham itself mean that all her works on behalf of the Israelites was justified? Lets look at the passage contextually again. First, Abraham is mentioned. He is the father of the Jewish nation. He is the called out one. His is an example of an insider if there ever was one. But to reinforce his point, James puts forward a rank outsider, a pagan, a prostitute, an outcast. And he shows us that even though she had faith (As we have seen in Hebrews 11) her faith was not alone. She staked her life on her belief that Yahweh was Lord. What a set up for his final statement in the chapter - "faith without works is dead".
c. What about her works is justified?
Sticking with the words of scripture, James 2:25 mentions specifically that Rahab welcomed the spies and sent them another way. In simple terms, she helped the people of God. This help was the evidence of her faith. We do not see an endorsement of her lies, or even that somehow she was OK in allowing the soldiers of Jericho to believe that the Jews had come to her for prostitution. All those issues are subsidiary, and not even dealt with in James. We need to say what scripture says and be quiet when it speaks nothing about an issue.
I am reminded of David, the "man after God's own heart". I struggled for a long while with the fact that though David is upheld as one of the great ones in the OT, his life is filled with immorality, inconsistency and lack of faith. What about Abraham? He is noted as an example of justification by faith, and yet the major part of his life is characterized by disbelief and lack of trust. Was there a different standard for these? Did God somehow allow those things then for them, because the situation was different? No! Once again, we see that God is steadfast in his love and gracious to all. His grace covered them ultimately through Christ (Rom 3:21-26)
The Egyptian Midwives:
A similar principle applies here, the favor of God cannot justifiably be used to endorse lies. We have seen God rewarding faith similarly in Abraham, David and Rahab, the weakness of the sinner is covered by Grace. Vs 21 elaborates - they "feared God" and God blessed them.
Edit: To further elucidate, they feared God above man. So when Pharaoh commanded them to kill the Hebrew babies, they refused. This was what God blessed them for. They obeyed him rather than man. That they spoke untruth does not justify it just because they were intending good.
We need to use scripture to interpret scripture, and use the certain to interpret the uncertain, not the reverse. Lying is sin, and we do not have sufficient warrant to add exceptions to a command which is absolute.
The first rude awakening occurs when the accounts of Rahab and the Egyptian midwives are thrown at me. Both are examples of people who spoke actual untruth. Both were commended in some way by God. The question is raised whether this can be used as an exception to God's rule of lying.
Rahab: Joshua 2 tells us a wonderful story of God's eternal Grace. A prostitute saw the glory of God through His works for Israel, and she believed. I love verse 11.
11 And as soon as we heard it [of God's power through Israel], our hearts melted, and there was no spirit left in any man because of you, for the Lord your God, he is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath.In Joshua chapter 2:5,6 we are presented with this woman, Rahab who speaks untruth in order to save the Jewish spies who are hiding in her house. Her belief in the God of Israel led her to help the spies, and lying was a part of this help. At this point, there would be no real problem. Lying is a sin, and therefore what she did was a sin. The end does not justify the means. We would put this down to another testimony of God's grace in a weak sinner.
There are two verses that raise questions. The first on is Hebrews 11:31.
By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.With regard to the issue at hand, there is no explicit connection. This verse is talking about Rahab's faith in the God of Israel. No mention or endorsement is made of her actions. I believe this verse is a comment on Rahab's attitude in Joshua 2:11. Additionally, we can use a previous verse in the chapter to shed light on our understanding of what was this faith of Rahab.
Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
The second passage about Rahab could raise a few more questions.
James 2:25 - And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?We begin to wonder - was Rahab justified by works, including her lie? This would allow for an argument that said cetain kind of lying is justified. I think the problem arises when we come to a text and try to understand from it what it was never intended to prove or disprove. My solution is simply this - lets look at the passage and understand it's meaning and implications in context.
a. What is the passage about?
We find a clue about this from verse 14 of the same chapter
James 2:14 - What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?The point is the one that has been made by great theologians from the ages since the reformation - that we are justified by faith alone, but that faith is NOT ALONE. Deeds must follow our belief. Action proves that we truly believe. Rahab is one of the examples.
b. So why this controversial person as an example?
Why Rahab? Does her inclusion beside Abraham itself mean that all her works on behalf of the Israelites was justified? Lets look at the passage contextually again. First, Abraham is mentioned. He is the father of the Jewish nation. He is the called out one. His is an example of an insider if there ever was one. But to reinforce his point, James puts forward a rank outsider, a pagan, a prostitute, an outcast. And he shows us that even though she had faith (As we have seen in Hebrews 11) her faith was not alone. She staked her life on her belief that Yahweh was Lord. What a set up for his final statement in the chapter - "faith without works is dead".
c. What about her works is justified?
Sticking with the words of scripture, James 2:25 mentions specifically that Rahab welcomed the spies and sent them another way. In simple terms, she helped the people of God. This help was the evidence of her faith. We do not see an endorsement of her lies, or even that somehow she was OK in allowing the soldiers of Jericho to believe that the Jews had come to her for prostitution. All those issues are subsidiary, and not even dealt with in James. We need to say what scripture says and be quiet when it speaks nothing about an issue.
I am reminded of David, the "man after God's own heart". I struggled for a long while with the fact that though David is upheld as one of the great ones in the OT, his life is filled with immorality, inconsistency and lack of faith. What about Abraham? He is noted as an example of justification by faith, and yet the major part of his life is characterized by disbelief and lack of trust. Was there a different standard for these? Did God somehow allow those things then for them, because the situation was different? No! Once again, we see that God is steadfast in his love and gracious to all. His grace covered them ultimately through Christ (Rom 3:21-26)
The Egyptian Midwives:
Exodus 1:19-21 - The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families.
A similar principle applies here, the favor of God cannot justifiably be used to endorse lies. We have seen God rewarding faith similarly in Abraham, David and Rahab, the weakness of the sinner is covered by Grace. Vs 21 elaborates - they "feared God" and God blessed them.
Edit: To further elucidate, they feared God above man. So when Pharaoh commanded them to kill the Hebrew babies, they refused. This was what God blessed them for. They obeyed him rather than man. That they spoke untruth does not justify it just because they were intending good.
We need to use scripture to interpret scripture, and use the certain to interpret the uncertain, not the reverse. Lying is sin, and we do not have sufficient warrant to add exceptions to a command which is absolute.
Lying and the Bible - Part 3/3
Broader definitions of Lying
So far I have dealt with simply speaking what is true. There is a broader issue however. Deception takes many forms.
1. What about half truths?
2. What about withholding information?
3. What about simple tomfoolery, pranks, games, etc?
Firstly not all these things can really be put into one category as "lying". For instance, withholding information is many times healthy and desirable, for instance in issues of confidentiality, whether spiritual or even military. Wisdom and deception are far removed from each other.
Games are another area - both sides are aware of certain parameters within which to function. There are accepted norms. And in fact, Games have very strict rules and penalties for going outside the bounds. When someone tries to manipulate rules, he is labelled a cheat. Why? Not just because of a transgression of law - that's a foul. Cheating is when the intent is malicious.
So morality and spirituality comes in at the point of intent. If in these cases intent is malicious then sin is born. Whether in areas of Withholding information, half truths, or Game parameters.
Again, we cannot justifiably say that lying or deception is ever endorsed Biblically. Some might take a hard line and label as lies even instances where intent is
not malicious. But I think this muddies the water unprofitably.
It is important to remember that we need to be very careful how we deal with issues out of the boundaries of explicit speaking of untruth. Intent is a hard thing to gauge. But it will be the key in unravelling the matter.
For example, a child may withhold information from a parent because of fear of consequences. The intent is sinful.
But a child may also unwittingly withhold information that might have been pertinent to the issue, simply because the child did not know it was important. The intent then was not sinful.
In this case the discernment and spiritual insight of the parent comes into play.
Final Notes
I need to delve a little into some of the more subjective arguments.
A question was raised about hierarchy of God's law. The logic was that some laws take precedence over others, and for instance if I have to lie to protect someone from being murdered, then that would be justified.
A quick note about this: The only related scriptural examples I can find are these: Children are commanded to obey their parents (Eph 6:1) All people are commanded to be subject to all authorities. (Rom 13:1) However, in each of these instances these is a caveat, if you look at the verses. from this we understand that if people in authority contradict God, then we disobey authority. This is not really teaching hierarchy of law. It is an issue of hierarchy in authority. Whenever God's word is compromised, then I obey God rather than man. So I disobey man, but it is not sin, because God specifically has declared himself supreme authority. Obeying him is of first importance.
As far as lying goes, the hierarchy of authority does not apply, because God as supreme authority has commanded us to be truthful, and there is no issue of submission to any other involved.
Edit: It has been a long while, but I thought I'd add this "mindlblowing revelation" to conclude. With regard to all the exceptions to lying that we might think up to oppose what I believe is a Biblical argument, isn't there a place to say "trust God"? However difficult the situation, if He has decreed something and we seek to obey Him, Can we not rest in knowing that He will provide the means to carry out His will? Or the strength to bear the consequences of obedience to Him? These may be painful in the moment, maybe... but eternally joyous. We serve a living, caring Father. Amen?
So far I have dealt with simply speaking what is true. There is a broader issue however. Deception takes many forms.
1. What about half truths?
2. What about withholding information?
3. What about simple tomfoolery, pranks, games, etc?
Firstly not all these things can really be put into one category as "lying". For instance, withholding information is many times healthy and desirable, for instance in issues of confidentiality, whether spiritual or even military. Wisdom and deception are far removed from each other.
Games are another area - both sides are aware of certain parameters within which to function. There are accepted norms. And in fact, Games have very strict rules and penalties for going outside the bounds. When someone tries to manipulate rules, he is labelled a cheat. Why? Not just because of a transgression of law - that's a foul. Cheating is when the intent is malicious.
So morality and spirituality comes in at the point of intent. If in these cases intent is malicious then sin is born. Whether in areas of Withholding information, half truths, or Game parameters.
Again, we cannot justifiably say that lying or deception is ever endorsed Biblically. Some might take a hard line and label as lies even instances where intent is
not malicious. But I think this muddies the water unprofitably.
It is important to remember that we need to be very careful how we deal with issues out of the boundaries of explicit speaking of untruth. Intent is a hard thing to gauge. But it will be the key in unravelling the matter.
For example, a child may withhold information from a parent because of fear of consequences. The intent is sinful.
But a child may also unwittingly withhold information that might have been pertinent to the issue, simply because the child did not know it was important. The intent then was not sinful.
In this case the discernment and spiritual insight of the parent comes into play.
Final Notes
I need to delve a little into some of the more subjective arguments.
A question was raised about hierarchy of God's law. The logic was that some laws take precedence over others, and for instance if I have to lie to protect someone from being murdered, then that would be justified.
A quick note about this: The only related scriptural examples I can find are these: Children are commanded to obey their parents (Eph 6:1) All people are commanded to be subject to all authorities. (Rom 13:1) However, in each of these instances these is a caveat, if you look at the verses. from this we understand that if people in authority contradict God, then we disobey authority. This is not really teaching hierarchy of law. It is an issue of hierarchy in authority. Whenever God's word is compromised, then I obey God rather than man. So I disobey man, but it is not sin, because God specifically has declared himself supreme authority. Obeying him is of first importance.
As far as lying goes, the hierarchy of authority does not apply, because God as supreme authority has commanded us to be truthful, and there is no issue of submission to any other involved.
Edit: It has been a long while, but I thought I'd add this "mindlblowing revelation" to conclude. With regard to all the exceptions to lying that we might think up to oppose what I believe is a Biblical argument, isn't there a place to say "trust God"? However difficult the situation, if He has decreed something and we seek to obey Him, Can we not rest in knowing that He will provide the means to carry out His will? Or the strength to bear the consequences of obedience to Him? These may be painful in the moment, maybe... but eternally joyous. We serve a living, caring Father. Amen?
Friday, April 14, 2006
The Waiter Rule
USATODAY.com - CEOs say how you treat a waiter can predict a lot about character
As far as the business world goes, it's a sad day if you spend half your life being arrogant and displaying your "power" and shooting people down, just to learn that you have no character...
The waiter rule is an interesting barometer. And not just for business people. Where Christians are concerned, I'd take it to the level of how you treat the lowly in general - not just people who serve you, but people who you benefit nothing from.
I find it sad that I can think of situations where people in ministry leadership fail the test. That's even sadder than a characterless CEO- It's an absolute tragedy of misguided motives.
As far as the business world goes, it's a sad day if you spend half your life being arrogant and displaying your "power" and shooting people down, just to learn that you have no character...
The waiter rule is an interesting barometer. And not just for business people. Where Christians are concerned, I'd take it to the level of how you treat the lowly in general - not just people who serve you, but people who you benefit nothing from.
I find it sad that I can think of situations where people in ministry leadership fail the test. That's even sadder than a characterless CEO- It's an absolute tragedy of misguided motives.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Private Blogging
Why have a blog if you aren't going to tell anyone about it? Well, I do realize there's a hypocisy involved in having a blog but wanting it to be private.
Why would anyone have a private Blog? Let me try to unravel this paradox.
- I guess the illusion of privacy is appealing.
- There's the feeling of naughtyness, for lack of a more technical term, that you're doing something quietly in the middle of a great big bustling world of people and no one knows - cheeky, isn't it?
- There's the desire to have a "venting" outlet at hand, and for someone who is on the web a lot, what better venting outlet than a blog.
- It is the firm belief of non-conformists like myself that if we do what everybody is doing the same way as everybody else does it that we have lost a piece of our soul. So we have to be different. What a sad lot it is, being a non-conformist.
- It gives me a topic to blog about.
But it's a moot point, since I gave out my blog address ages ago. I guess now I have to be conscious of what I write because someone might see it.... hahaha. Right. NOW that's an issue.
Why would anyone have a private Blog? Let me try to unravel this paradox.
- I guess the illusion of privacy is appealing.
- There's the feeling of naughtyness, for lack of a more technical term, that you're doing something quietly in the middle of a great big bustling world of people and no one knows - cheeky, isn't it?
- There's the desire to have a "venting" outlet at hand, and for someone who is on the web a lot, what better venting outlet than a blog.
- It is the firm belief of non-conformists like myself that if we do what everybody is doing the same way as everybody else does it that we have lost a piece of our soul. So we have to be different. What a sad lot it is, being a non-conformist.
- It gives me a topic to blog about.
But it's a moot point, since I gave out my blog address ages ago. I guess now I have to be conscious of what I write because someone might see it.... hahaha. Right. NOW that's an issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)