Lying for the sake of life

[Cow Poke]

Ha! When my dad had lung cancer they went in and did exploratory surgery to see the extent of it. When the doctor came to see us he said basically, "The cancer is beyond our control. You are going to die" - pretty much that bluntly. I took the doctor out into the hall and let him have it. A couple of nurses came up to me afterwards and told me what a total jerk that doctor was and that he treats patients and even other staff like they don't matter.

Yeah, I remember when I used to watch House, this kind of issue came up frequently. You don't need to hide the truth, but you don't need to punch the guy in the face with it, either.

[Teallaura]

As a general rule, withholding the truth is as much a cruelty as presenting it crudely. There's no good way to say 'you have x and it may kill you' but that doesn't justify saying it badly. To have any chance at all, the patient has to know - even if it's just the chance to come to grips with a terminal diagnosis.

[Sparko]

As a general rule, withholding the truth is as much a cruelty as presenting it crudely. There's no good way to say 'you have x and it may kill you' but that doesn't justify saying it badly. To have any chance at all, the patient has to know - even if it's just the chance to come to grips with a terminal diagnosis.

Doctors don't know everything either, so giving a definitive terminal diagnosis is usually not a wise idea. My dad had a stroke several years earlier (than the lung cancer) and he was in a coma. The ER doc also said he was going to die and never wake up because the blood pooling in his brain and that we should say goodbye. I refused to listen to him and had him airlifted to a hospital in a big city. They saved him.

Now he did die from the lung cancer, but the doctor could have been less blunt. "I'm sorry but from what we have seen the outlook is not that good. We can try various things to slow the cancer down, but we don't believe it can be cured at this stage" or something like that. not, "You are going to die"

[lee_merrill]

No, but lying is evil--what other sins would be allowed in order to save an innocent life? Stealing? Adultery? Murder?

Could you steal a loaf of bread from a Nazi if you are feeding a starving child?
Can you kill someone to defend yourself?

[Sparko]

You never lived in Nazi Germany. My mom did. It was horrible. If you had a child and no food, would it be a sin to take a loaf of bread from someone who had too much to feed your child? You are defending a life right? If you can KILL to defend a life and it not be murder, why can't you steal or lie to save a life and it not be a sin? How is it different?

[simplicio]

"That is to say, we shouldn't need to steal in order to provide for our own or another's needs." Seems to presuppose that we live in a just society, in which there is no need to steal to meet the most basic needs for life.

But what if one is faced with the conditions in which theft is the only means of meeting the needs of the family? Assuming that the theft does not deprive someone else of those mist basic needs.

[lee_merrill]

You never lived in Nazi Germany. My mom did. It was horrible.

I'm sorry for her.

If you had a child and no food, would it be a sin to take a loaf of bread from someone who had too much to feed your child?

Yes, it would be stealing, and the Lord promised to provide for those who seek his kingdom and his righteousness.

You are defending a life right? If you can KILL to defend a life and it not be murder, why can't you steal or lie to save a life and it not be a sin? How is it different?

Or committing adultery? Some things are sins always, and I believe we will never be forced to choose between sins.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

"That is to say, we shouldn't need to steal in order to provide for our own or another's needs." Seems to presuppose that we live in a just society, in which there is no need to steal to meet the most basic needs for life.

But Jesus was talking about those living in the world with all its injustices and needs, saying the Father will provide as we seek him.

But what if one is faced with the conditions in which theft is the only means of meeting the needs of the family? Assuming that the theft does not deprive someone else of those mist basic needs.

Then we have to be in situations where we have to choose to sin, but I believe God in his providence oversees our lives so that we never have to choose between sins. Otherwise, there would be no means of escape (see 1 Cor. 10:13).

Blessings,
Lee

[Sparko]

I'm sorry for her.


Yes, it would be stealing, and the Lord promised to provide for those who seek his kingdom and his righteousness.


Or committing adultery? Some things are sins always, and I believe we will never be forced to choose between sins.

Blessings,
Lee

So why is killing to defend a life OK but lying to defend a life not OK? "some things are sins always" is not an answer. Killing someone is a lot worse than lyiing to them!

[lee_merrill]

So why is killing to defend a life OK but lying to defend a life not OK? "some things are sins always" is not an answer. Killing someone is a lot worse than lyiing to them!

Or committing adultery to defend a life? And let's say killing someone is worse than committing adultery.

So does this clarify my argument? We do need to know if something is always a sin.

Blessings,
Lee

[Christianbookworm]

Or committing adultery to defend a life? And let's say killing someone is worse than committing adultery.

So does this clarify my argument? We do need to know if something is always a sin.

Blessings,
Lee

I don't see how one could commit adultery to save a life. Rape isn't adultery.

[Sparko]

Or committing adultery to defend a life? And let's say killing someone is worse than committing adultery.

So does this clarify my argument? We do need to know if something is always a sin.

Blessings,
Lee

You keep deflecting and not answering me.

If you think it is OK to kill someone to defend an innocent life, why is it not OK to lie to someone to defend an innocent life?

Here is a situation. You are hiding a jew from the Nazi's. They are going around rounding them up and shooting them on the spot. A Nazi comes to your home and searches your house and is about to discover the jew who he will kill.

You can

1. Kill the Nazi, thus defending the Jew's life. You already said this is not murder and therefore not a sin.
2. Lie to the Nazi, thus defending the Jew's life. This way the Nazi AND the Jew live. and you. everyone lives.

or 3. You can tell the truth and the Nazi will kill the Jew and then probably you. Everyone but the Nazi dies.

Now explain to me how #2 is the sin here and why #1 and #3 are more preferable?

no more deflecting to adultary or whatever you want to use to not answer directly.

[lee_merrill]

You keep deflecting and not answering me.

If you think it is OK to kill someone to defend an innocent life, why is it not OK to lie to someone to defend an innocent life?

Because lying is always a sin, and as Christians, we have renounced sin.

Here is a situation. You are hiding a jew from the Nazi's. They are going around rounding them up and shooting them on the spot. A Nazi comes to your home and searches your house and is about to discover the jew who he will kill.

You can

1. Kill the Nazi, thus defending the Jew's life. You already said this is not murder and therefore not a sin.
2. Lie to the Nazi, thus defending the Jew's life. This way the Nazi AND the Jew live. and you. everyone lives.

or 3. You can tell the truth and the Nazi will kill the Jew and then probably you. Everyone but the Nazi dies.

Now explain to me how #2 is the sin here and why #1 and #3 are more preferable?

no more deflecting to adultary or whatever you want to use to not answer directly.

Because lying is forbidden (God cannot lie), #2 is a sin, and #1 and #3 are not. We are not to sin, even to save ourselves or another person.

This became a crucial point in Christian persecutions, where all they had to do was to say "Caesar is lord" and burn a pinch of incense in order to save themselves and their families.

Blessings,
Lee

[Sparko]

Because lying is always a sin, and as Christians, we have renounced sin.


Because lying is forbidden (God cannot lie), #2 is a sin, and #1 and #3 are not. We are not to sin, even to save ourselves or another person.

This became a crucial point in Christian persecutions, where all they had to do was to say "Caesar is lord" and burn a pinch of incense in order to save themselves and their families.

Blessings,
Lee

That is more than lying to save a life, that is taking a Oath and denying Christ.

Murder is a sin too. And if you could avoid killing someone by telling a lie then you needlessly took his life. I am talking about the Nazi here that you could have lied to instead of killing to prevent him from killing the Jew you were hiding. If you kill when you don't need to then that is murder too right? so wouldn't #1 be a sin too then?

You also seem to think that taking a life is not a sin if you do it in self defense. But lying is.

Look at it like this: Either killing someone is still a sin no matter what (you purposefully took someone's life!) but is it allowable in self-defense or it is not a sin at all if done in self-defense even though the action is the same as the sin (taking a life) - just the motivation is different.

Lying could be the same: Either lying is still a sin no matter what but it is allowable to save a life (like Rahab did) or it is not a sin a all if done in self-defense. The motivation is different.

[JonathanL]

Because lying is forbidden (God cannot lie)

I don't know any logical argument that can take you from "God cannot lie" to "lying is forbidden" and I suspect neither do you.