A Real and Significant Biblical Contradiction?

[CliveStaples]

IF you accept the concept of a 'just war', (I do not) Sun Tzu's precept that war is about deception is perfectly moral. To argue that it is OK to deceive/lie under some circumstances is to argue moral relativism,or that God is above his own moral laws.

That's not necessarily true. Perhaps God has a kind of authority that does not require divulging certain kinds of truths--just as there are state secrets which the government is not required to divulge. Or perhaps God has a particular relationship to humans that justifies withholding the truth--just as a parent is not required to divulge, say, details of their sex lives to their children. If you're going to argue that God had an obligation to divulge the truth, you're going to need to show it.

[Godscreated]

in the case of war or the game of chess.

I repeat; sophistry,to deliberately deceive IS to lie. However, I do not argue that lying is always immoral..

IF you accept the concept of a 'just war', (I do not) Sun Tzu's precept that war is about deception is perfectly moral. To argue that it is OK to deceive/lie under some circumstances is to argue moral relativism,or that God is above his own moral laws.

My position is that of moral relativism,based on the sensible notion that the ends justify the means. Pretty sure those are not Christian ideals.

And I never said that God set out to use deceit with the prophet, what I said, was God allowed the prophet to deceive himself, this is the point I've been trying to get across.

[spockrates]

Ritualistic cannibalism???

Eating the Passover lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, they say.

---

God can not lie, deceiving and lying are not necessarily the same.

Interesting piece of sophistry. A basic definition of lying is to deliberately deceive another. 'White lies' , half truths and deliberate omissions to deceive are all lies.

If God sets out to deliberately deceive,he is lying,period.

Padraic:

The Sophists were adversaries of Socrates and other true philosophers. Many of them prided themselves in being able to win an argument, no matter how difficult to defend. Some showed their prowess in debate by taking a side in an argument and defeating all challengers. After so winning the debate, they'd take the opposite position of the argument and win the debate, again! Winning was everything to them, and they often deliberately made a bloody sacrifice of the truth to gain their victories. Many of the students of these Sophists used what they learned from their teachers to become successful lawyers and politicians in ancient Greece.

But we're after the truth, here. We want to capture it alive, not slaughter it! So let's carefully consider the question of whether every deception (without exception) truly is a lie. I suppose I'd ask this to find the answer: Is it possible to lie without speaking, or writing a word? Can one say, or write nothing and still lie? If so, please give an example.

Or if you prefer, explain how GC's, or CS's examples of deception are actually examples of telling lies. For example, does one tell a lie by playing chess?

---

in the case of war or the game of chess.

I repeat; sophistry,to deliberately deceive IS to lie. However, I do not argue that lying is always immoral..

IF you accept the concept of a 'just war', (I do not) Sun Tzu's precept that war is about deception is perfectly moral. To argue that it is OK to deceive/lie under some circumstances is to argue moral relativism,or that God is above his own moral laws.

My position is that of moral relativism,based on the sensible notion that the ends justify the means. Pretty sure those are not Christian ideals.

Indeed! Ask a Christian if it is OK to lie, she'd likely say no. Ask her if deceiving is the same as telling a lie, she'd probably say yes. Ask her if one can tell a lie without saying a word, or writing any words, and would she change her mind?

I guess that even if we were to all come to an agreement on this, we would still have another question taunting us: Is it ever right, just and good to deceive without saying a word? Or if you like: Is it ever wrong, unjust and evil to reveal the truth to one we know is deceived?

---

IF you accept the concept of a 'just war', (I do not) Sun Tzu's precept that war is about deception is perfectly moral. To argue that it is OK to deceive/lie under some circumstances is to argue moral relativism,or that God is above his own moral laws.

That's not necessarily true. Perhaps God has a kind of authority that does not require divulging certain kinds of truths--just as there are state secrets which the government is not required to divulge. Or perhaps God has a particular relationship to humans that justifies withholding the truth--just as a parent is not required to divulge, say, details of their sex lives to their children. If you're going to argue that God had an obligation to divulge the truth, you're going to need to show it.

Yes, or maybe it's a matter of Utilitarianism: Deceiving one to save many from the harmful consequences of deception? Is the God portrayed in the Bible a Utilitarian? Hmmm.

[The Grand Nudger]

True philosophers™, that anything like a True Christian™? You really need to brush up on the hows, whys, and whos of greek philosophy. Sophist became a negatively charged word in the same way that communist did....they did not originally mean what we know use the words to convey. Bit like Platos strawmen of others arguments disguised as the character of Socrates.

Let me just throw something out there. Philosopher gets ass handed to him in debate-proceeds to write a nasty screed about the people who handed him his ass. Is some part of this surprising?

[Cato]

That's not necessarily true. Perhaps God has a kind of authority that does not require divulging certain kinds of truths--just as there are state secrets which the government is not required to divulge. Or perhaps God has a particular relationship to humans that justifies withholding the truth--just as a parent is not required to divulge, say, details of their sex lives to their children. If you're going to argue that God had an obligation to divulge the truth, you're going to need to show it.

This is nothing more than a poorly disguised 'mysterious ways' excuse.

Let's consider the biblical cure for leprosy. I don't remember the passages verbatim, but it had something to do with bird blood and chanting. God could have given the proper cure and better yet educate his chosen people as to the germ theory of disease. Not only did he not divulge the truth, no obligation to do so in your opinion, he batantly lied which resulted in immeasurable suffering until humans figured it out for themselves. If you believe the Bible to be the inspired or actual word of God you are left with having to invoke the 'mysterious ways' argument in an attempt to justify despicable behavior.

[CliveStaples]

This is nothing more than a poorly disguised 'mysterious ways' excuse.

It's not an "excuse". It's a hole in the criticism of God; if you're going to say that God has certain obligations, you have to explain why. How, for instance, do you know that God doesn't have some unique relationship to humanity that isn't present in human-to-human ethics, but which necessitates obligations for God that are different from the human-to-human ethic? If you're sure that God does in fact have some particular obligation, you should be able to support it.

Let's consider the biblical cure for leprosy. I don't remember the passages verbatim, but it had something to do with bird blood and chanting. God could have given the proper cure and better yet educate his chosen people as to the germ theory of disease. Not only did he not divulge the truth, no obligation to do so in your opinion, he batantly lied which resulted in immeasurable suffering until humans figured it out for themselves. If you believe the Bible to be the inspired or actual word of God you are left with having to invoke the 'mysterious ways' argument in an attempt to justify despicable behavior.

But you don't know the counterfactual. What those particular people would do with that particular information...human behavior isn't that predictable. Unless somehow you know precisely how things would have gone down? Or perhaps you have some system of drawing inferences that lets you quantify how confident you are that a certain scenario would happen?

[Cato]

It's not an "excuse". It's a hole in the criticism of God; if you're going to say that God has certain obligations, you have to explain why. How, for instance, do you know that God doesn't have some unique relationship to humanity that isn't present in human-to-human ethics, but which necessitates obligations for God that are different from the human-to-human ethic? If you're sure that God does in fact have some particular obligation, you should be able to support it.

Ok, clarification is required. I don't believe in god. My use of the term god is for convenience and is taken to mean the god of the bible. To be precise, when I use god I mean to say the fictional character created by ignorant Palestinian Jews in order to explain natural phenomena in the absence of scientific inquiry and to exercise a measure of crowd control. For this reason I have nothing to say about god's obligations. In fact, arguing that god does not have any obligations makes the Christian position more bizarre.

Based on your argument we can conclude that god is under no obligation to tell people the truth since he lied about the cure for leprosy. I'll get to the counterfactual bit in a moment, but he specifically gave them a useless prescription for curing the disease; therefore, a lie. How am I now supposed to take anything else in the bible as serious mandates from god? How am I to differentiate between a lie and truth from god?

But you don't know the counterfactual. What those particular people would do with that particular information...human behavior isn't that predictable. Unless somehow you know precisely how things would have gone down? Or perhaps you have some system of drawing inferences that lets you quantify how confident you are that a certain scenario would happen?

Let me get this straight. According to you, god had the foresight to not give his chosen people the cure for leprosy because of an unexplained alternate history, but didn't station the lightsaber wielding cherub until after the fall.

Why didn't god just remain silent regarding leprosy? What could possibly have been the purpose for the lie?

[spockrates]

True philosophers™, that anythinBg like a True Christian™? You really need to brush up on the hows, whys, and whos of greek philosophy. Sophist became a negatively charged word in the same way that communist did....they did not originally mean what we know use the words to convey. Bit like Platos strawmen of others arguments disguised as the character of Socrates.

Let me just throw something out there. Philosopher gets ass handed to him in debate-proceeds to write a nasty screed about the people who handed him his ass. Is some part of this surprising?

Wise I would not call them. For that title is too great and belongs to God alone. Lovers of wisdom (or philosophers) is a more fitting description.

--Socrates (Phaedrus)

Since many sophists sought only to win arguments and cared not which side of the argument they were on, I'd say that they indeed were not true philosophers. They had no love lost for wisdom, and the word philosopher in Greek meant a lover of wisdom.

Also, I believe Christian should have a registered trademark. Anyone can trademark anything and agree that someone else can do the same. Only a registered trademark has teeth. Protestants and Catholics and others all believe they have exclusive rights to the word!

:p

---

OK, so I'll go out on limb, here. I'll say that the only way I personally see that the understandings of the two passages quoted in the OP are not in conflict would be this: The word deceive in Ezekiel does not mean the same as the word lie in Hebrews. It's comparing apples to oranges, and so no contradiction really exists.

Christians: Any disagreements? Is there a better way to defend against the accusation of contradiction? (Or would you care to answer the questions I've already asked about your alternate suggestions?)

Atheists: Do you disagree? Is there any way to demonstrate that every deception is a lie? Or will you show that the deception of the first passage cited in the OP is the same kind as the lie which is impossible for God to tell in the second passage cited? (It's understood you don't believe God exists. The question is whether the picture of God painted by the OT author contradicts the picture of him painted by the NT author.)

Anyone: Please let us know what you think. We're trying to determine if there is a genuine contradiction, here. Or if you could care less, sorry to disappoint by the choice of topic!

[Godscreated]

@ Spockrates, I agree that the two verses are not a contradiction, I also agree that deception is not always lying, it can be a strategy. However as I've said and continue to, in Ezekiel God is not directly deceiving the prophet, God allows the prophet to be deceived by his own prophecy through his vanity. God does not reveal the true to the prophet, this is to punish the prophet because the prophet is deceiving Israel.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Lying isn't always lying, especially if it's god doing it" "It's a different kind of deception, and it's okay because god is doing it" "It was okay for god to be deceptive because someone else was being deceptive"

oh, and for you Clive...."Mysterious ways, except that I'm not saying that, but no... seriously.....mysterious ways"

Guys..there isn't any contradiction. It's a different god, a different narrative, and they both happen to be fictional to begin with. They couldn't contradict each other if they tried. See how easy that was?