What we should/should not be thinking of

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are honorable, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report: if there is any virtue and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (World English Bible)

That passage indicates that we should think about, and consider, the good in God's world, and the good that other people do. And it also indicates that we should avoid thinking of thangs that aren't good, in the society we live in.

That's hard. I'm something of a news junkie. CBS has been featuring Steve Hartman, reporting on the good in people, every week, for years. The network also reports on the good, nearly every evening. NBC has done the same thing, weekly, even explicitly reminding us that they are telling us about the good that people do.  I don't watch ABC or Fox evening news. Perhaps they, too, are highlighting good things. I hope so. Local TV news seems to be a morass of shootings, politicians lying, and people being horribly mistreated. There's an old saying, I think about newspapers (whatever they were!) "If it bleeds, it leads." There is plenty of bleeding in the world, but we emphasize it way too much.

Thanks for reading. I hope this post has done you some good. 

With Christ in the School of Prayer, by Andrew Murray, 11

And in truth.  That does not only mean, in sincerity.  Nor does it only signify, in accordance with the truth of God’s Word.  The expression is one of deep and Divine meaning. Jesus is ‘the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.’ ‘The law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.’ Jesus says, ‘I am the truth and the life.’ In the Old Testament all was shadow and promise; Jesus brought and gives the reality, the substance, of things hoped for.  In Him the blessings and powers of the eternal life are our actual possession and experience.  Jesus is full of grace and truth; the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth; through Him the grace that is in Jesus is ours in deed and truth, a positive communication out of the Divine life.  And so worship in spirit is worship in truth; actual living fellowship with God, a real correspondence and harmony between the Father, who is a Spirit, and the child praying in the spirit.

What Jesus said to the woman of Samaria, she could not at once understand.  Pentecost was needed to reveal its full meaning.  We are hardly prepared at our first entrance into the school of prayer to grasp such teaching.  We shall understand it better later on.  Let us only begin and take the lesson as He gives it.  We are carnal and cannot bring God the worship He seeks.  But Jesus came to give the Spirit:  He has given Him to us.  Let the disposition in which we set ourselves to pray be what Christ’s words have taught us.  Let there be the deep confession of our inability to bring God the worship that is pleasing to Him; the childlike teachableness that waits on Him to instruct us; the simple faith that yields itself to the breathing of the Spirit.  Above all, let us hold fast the blessed truth—we shall find that the Lord has more to say to us about it—that the knowledge of the Fatherhood of God, the revelation of His infinite Fatherliness in our hearts, the faith in the infinite love that gives us His Son and His Spirit to make us children, is indeed the secret of prayer in spirit andtruth.  This is the new and living way Christ opened up for us.  To have Christ the Son, and the Spirit of the Son, dwelling within us, and revealing the Father, this makes us true, spiritual worshippers.

This post continues what is intended to be a series of excerpts from With Christ in the School of Prayer, by Andrew Murray. I thank the Christian Classics Ethereal Library for making this public domain work available. To see their post of the book, go here. The previous post is here. As usual in this blog, long quotations are in this color.

"I am" in the Gospel of John -- important occurrences.

There are about 70 occurrences of the word pair "I am" in John, most rather trivial. Those below are not trivial.

This “I am” is not in John, but is the source of one that is in that Gospel:
Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM,” and he said, “You shall tell the children of Israel this: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM.” Jesus was referring to the experience of Moses indicated above, and his critical hearers understood that He was doing so.

In John 4, Jesus, in effect, told the Samaritan woman that I am living water. 10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” 13 Jesus answered her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never thirst again; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”

6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will not be hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 47 Most certainly, I tell you, he who believes in me has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life.

8:12 Again, therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.”

10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will still live, even if he dies. 26 Whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” [To Martha]

14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me. [To Peter. Perhaps other disciples were present.]

15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the farmer. 2 Every branch in me that doesn’t bear fruit, he takes away. Every branch that bears fruit, he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.

18:37 Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”

Thanks for reading. He is!

Impressions, by Martin Wells Knapp, 69

In a previous excerpt, Knapp stated that there are four features of "impressions" from God. These are Scriptural; Right (consistent with good morals); Providential (in harmony with God's will); and Reasonable. His discussion of the result of living by "Convictions from Above," according to Christ's example, continues:
It is a part of God's plan that every resurrection and Pentecost shall be preceded by a Gethsemane and Calvary. The Holy Spirit fully followed will sustain in the conflict, and lead to the crown. In stead of being surprised at opposition in the path of duty, it should be remembered that our "Perfect Model" met it, and that, like Him, we are to expect, meet and conquer it.

Jesus was Patient. His patience must have been sorely tried by the stupidity, rashness and carnality of His followers, by the treachery of Judas, by the inconveniences that were inseparable from His homeless life, by the weariness and weakness that came from exposure, hunger, fasting and toilsome journeys from place to place; yet not one impatient word ever fell from His lips.

Jesus Proclaimed the Plain Truth. He insisted on the necessity of repentance and of the new birth; emphasized man's accountability, the judgment and the reality of heaven, and the awfulness and duration of the doom of the damned.

He Preached Against the Popular Sins of His Day. Neither the priesthood nor common people who were living in public or private sin escaped His denunciations. His lightning leaped upon hypocritical ecclesiastics with gleeful fury. Like their brethren today, who love the praise of men more than the praise of God, and seek more earnestly the honors of earth than the gift of the Holy Ghost, they doubtless dubbed Him a "scolding pessimist," and followed their own ways instead of His truth.

Excerpted from Impressions, by Martin Wells Knapp. Original publication date, 1892. Public domain. My source is here. The previous post in the series is here.

Sunspots 601

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Christianity: Relevant tells us five things we need to know about prayer.

(and History) National Public Radio reports on how Martin Luther went viral (in 1517!).

A Relevant article favors sexual abstinence before marriage, but points out that this doesn't mean that a couple will have "great sex" on their wedding night.


Food: National Public Radio reports on a truffle auction. Would you believe 6 figures for a truffle?

History: ListVerse on why many of us think things are really bad (for example, that our children are less safe than in the past) and why we shouldn't think so.

ListVerse also discusses the craziest (and most violent and fraudulent) Presidential election in U. S. History. It wasn't the one in 2016.

Humor: National Public Radio reports (in verse!) on sculptures created by Dr. Seuss.


Politics: The Oxford Dictionary has made "post-truth" (!) the word of the year. Relevant and Sojourners react to that choice.

Science: Scientific American tells us why skaters don't get dizzy when they spin.

Scientific American also has photos of Ceres, a dwarf planet. Here's the Wikipedia article on Ceres.





Image source (public domain)

Sunspots 579

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

The Arts: Listverse reports on 10 interesting dollhouses. Some of them have been used for children's play, some haven't.

Christianity: Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength doesn't think we are capable of understanding God fully (or even close to that.) This is in response to an atheist that thinks that, if there is a God, we should be capable of understanding Him.

Relevant on how to escape sexual temptation.

Christianity Today on how suffering produces sanctification.

Ken Schenck tells us that telling the truth is almost always the loving thing to do.

Health: The New York Times reports that, although there are some disturbing trends in health in the US, such as increased suicide rates, and increasing disparity in the life-spans of rich vs. poor, the health of children seems to be improving.

Philosophy: (Or something) Listverse gives us 10 possible explanations for the feeling of déjà vu. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with any of them, but they're interesting.

Politics: The New York Times on how rare gun deaths are in other countries.

Wired explains the FBI's terrorist watch lists.

Science: Wired wonders if mockingbirds can be trained to sing "songs" that are less annoying.


Image source (public domain)  

Excerpts from Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton, 69

Note: This post doesn't have anything to do with Mother's Day, at least not on purpose. Sorry.

If a shade arose from the under world, and stared at Piccadilly, that shade would not quite understand the idea of an ordinary closed carriage. He would suppose that the coachman on the box was a triumphant conqueror, dragging behind him a kicking and imprisoned captive. So, if we see spiritual facts for the first time, we may mistake who is uppermost.

I have now said enough to show (to any one to whom such an explanation is essential) that I have in the ordinary arena of apologetics, a ground of belief. In pure records of experiment (if these be taken democratically without contempt or favour) there is evidence first, that miracles happen, and second that the nobler miracles belong to our tradition. But I will not pretend that this curt discussion is my real reason for accepting Christianity instead of taking the moral good of Christianity as I should take it out of Confucianism. I have another far more solid and central ground for submitting to it as a faith, instead of merely picking up hints from it as a scheme. And that is this: that the Christian Church in its practical relation to my soul is a living teacher, not a dead one. It not only certainly taught me yesterday, but will almost certainly teach me tomorrow. Once I saw suddenly the meaning of the shape of the mitre. One fine morning I saw why windows were pointed; some fine morning I may see why priests were shaven. Plato has told you a truth; but Plato is dead. Shakespeare has startled you with an image; but Shakespeare will not startle you with any more. But imagine what it would be to live with such men still living, to know that Plato might break out with an original lecture tomorrow, or that at any moment Shakespeare might shatter everything with a single song. The man who lives in contact with what he believes to be a living Church is a man always expecting to meet Plato and Shakespeare tomorrow at breakfast. He is always expecting to see some truth that he has never seen before. There is one only other parallel to this position; and that is the parallel of the life in which we all began. When your father told you, walking about the garden, that bees stung or that roses smelt sweet, you did not talk of taking the best of out of his philosophy. When the bees stung you, you did not call it an entertaining coincidence. When the rose smelt sweet you did not say “My father is a rude, barbaric symbol, enshrining (perhaps unconsciously) the deep delicate truths that flowers smell.” No: you believed your father, because you had found him to be a living fountain of facts, a thing that really knew more than you; a thing that would tell you truth tomorrow, as well as today.

Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton, is in the public domain, and available from Project Gutenberg. The previous post in this series is here. Thanks for reading! Read Chesterton.

Excerpts from Orthodoxy, by Gilbert K. Chesterton, 36

The following propositions have been urged: First, that some faith in our life is required even to improve it; second, that some dissatisfaction with things as they are is necessary even in order to be satisfied; third, that to have this necessary content and necessary discontent it is not sufficient to have the obvious equilibrium of the Stoic. For mere resignation has neither the gigantic levity of pleasure nor the superb intolerance of pain. There is a vital objection to the advice merely to grin and bear it. The objection is that if you merely bear it, you do not grin. Greek heroes do not grin: but gargoyles do—because they are Christian. And when a Christian is pleased, he is (in the most exact sense) frightfully pleased; his pleasure is frightful. Christ prophesied the whole of Gothic architecture in that hour when nervous and respectable people (such people as now object to barrel organs) objected to the shouting of the gutter-snipes of Jerusalem. He said, “If these were silent, the very stones would cry out.” Under the impulse of His spirit arose like a clamorous chorus the façades of the medieval cathedrals, thronged with shouting faces and open mouths. The prophecy has fulfilled itself: the very stones cry out.

If these things be conceded, though only for argument, we may take up where we left it the thread of the thought of the natural man, called by the Scotch (with regrettable familiarity), “The Old Man.” We can ask the next question so obviously in front of us. Some satisfaction is needed even to make things better. But what do we mean by making things better? Most modern talk on this matter is a mere argument in a circle—that circle which we have already made the symbol of madness and of mere rationalism. Evolution is only good if it produces good; good is only good if it helps evolution. The elephant stands on the tortoise, and the tortoise on the elephant.

Obviously, it will not do to take our ideal from the principle in nature; for the simple reason that (except for some human or divine theory), there is no principle in nature. For instance, the cheap anti-democrat of today will tell you solemnly that there is no equality in nature. He is right, but he does not see the logical addendum. There is no equality in nature; also there is no inequality in nature. Inequality, as much as equality, implies a standard of value. To read aristocracy into the anarchy of animals is just as sentimental as to read democracy into it. Both aristocracy and democracy are human ideals: the one saying that all men are valuable, the other that some men are more valuable. But nature does not say that cats are more valuable than mice; nature makes no remark on the subject. She does not even say that the cat is enviable or the mouse pitiable. We think the cat superior because we have (or most of us have) a particular philosophy to the effect that life is better than death. But if the mouse were a German pessimist mouse, he might not think that the cat had beaten him at all. He might think he had beaten the cat by getting to the grave first. Or he might feel that he had actually inflicted frightful punishment on the cat by keeping him alive. Just as a microbe might feel proud of spreading a pestilence, so the pessimistic mouse might exult to think that he was renewing in the cat the torture of conscious existence. It all depends on the philosophy of the mouse. You cannot even say that there is victory or superiority in nature unless you have some doctrine about what things are superior. You cannot even say that the cat scores unless there is a system of scoring. You cannot even say that the cat gets the best of it unless there is some best to be got. We cannot, then, get the idea itself from nature, and as we follow here the first and natural speculation, we will leave out (for the present) the idea of getting it from God. We must have our own vision. But the attempts of most moderns to express it are highly vague.

Orthodoxy, first published in 1908, by G. K. Chesterton, is in the public domain, and available from Project Gutenberg. The previous post in this series is here. Thanks for reading! Read Chesterton.

Losing our moral compass and elementary education

An eye-opening essay from a college philosophy professor with a second-grade child makes an interesting claim. That claim is that second-graders, and others, are taught that there are two mutually exclusive things: facts and opinions. (Also known as facts and beliefs.) Furthermore, they are taught that value claims are opinions. But classroom rules, such as "you shouldn't copy someone else's work" are value claims. So there is a logical mess imposed on children by their teachers, and the educational system, that most teachers don't perceive. And, says the author, it's no wonder that college students think that there are no moral absolutes -- they are all opinions.

The article gives examples of ideas that are both facts and opinions, and his examples are easy to understand, and convincing.

I think the man is on to something.

I'm not an expert on the Common Core, and I don't think the author is, either. He says that the Common Core standards impose this dangerous distinction. No doubt they do, but my understanding is that elementary students were taught such distinctions before the Common Core was ever thought of. It is important to understand when someone is stating an opinion which is not based on truth, such as, unfortunately, most of the advertisements on TV, for example.

The author teaches philosophy of religion at a public college. He says nothing about Judaeo-Christian beliefs, as such, in his article. Which, by the way, appeared on an opinion page in the New York Times.

Thanks for reading. Read the article.

Lying, deceit and dishonesty in the Bible

What is lying? The Free Dictionary says that there are actually three English words, all spelled that same way. The third of these is most relevant, and this is the definition given:
n.
1. the telling of lies.
adj.
2. telling or containing lies; deliberately untruthful. 

Some people of my acquaintance have a broader definition. They would say that, if you thought the way to get to the local Fossil Fuel gas station was to go two miles down Main Street, and turn to the left, and told someone that, but the correct directions were to go three miles, and turn right, you would have lied. Not so. You would have given misinformation, and probably caused some inconvenience, but if you didn't know any better, you were not lying. If you did know better, you were lying. You were "deliberately untruthful."

Is lying a sin, according to the Ten Commandments?
Exodus 20:16 You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. (All scripture quotations, including this one, of the ninth Commandment, are from the World English Bible, which is in the public domain.)


Is lying a sin according to the Ten Commandments? Here's what some experts had to say on this commandment.

Matthew Henry, the seventeenth and eighteenth century English clergyman, said this about the ninth of the Ten Commandments, in his commentary on Exodus 20:
The ninth commandment concerns our own and our neighbour’s good name: Thou shalt not bear false witness, v. 16. This forbids, 1. Speaking falsely in any matter, lying, equivocating, and any way devising and designing to deceive our neighbour. 2. Speaking unjustly against our neighbour, to the prejudice of his reputation; and (which involves the guilty of both), 3. Bearing false witness against him, laying to his charge things that he knows not, either judicially, upon oath (by which the third commandment, and the sixth of eighth, as well as this, are broken), or extrajudicially, in common converse, slandering, backbiting, tale-bearing, aggravating what is done amiss and making it worse than it is, and any way endeavouring to raise our own reputation upon the ruin of our neighbour’s.

John Calvin wrote this in his commentary on the same commandment:
Although God seems only to prescribe that no one, for the purpose of injuring the innocent, should go into court, and publicly testify against him, yet it is plain that the faithful are prohibited from all false accusations, and not only such as are circulated in the streets, but those which are stirred in private houses and secret corners. For it would be absurd, when God has already shewn that men's fortunes are cared for by Him, that He should neglect their reputation, which is much more precious. In whatever way, therefore, we injure our neighbors by unjustly defaming them, we are accounted false witnesses before God. We must now pass on from the prohibitive to the affirmative precept: for it will not be enough for us to restrain our tongues from speaking evil, unless we are also kind and equitable towards our neighbors, and candid interpreters of their acts and words, and do not suffer them, as far as in us lies, to be burdened with false reproaches. Besides, God does not only forbid us to invent accusations against the innocent, but also to give currency to reproaches and sinister reports in malevolence or hatred. Such a person may perhaps deserve his ill-name, and we may truly lay such or such an accusation to his charge; but if the reproach be the ebullition of our anger, or the accusation proceed from ill-will, it will be vain for us to allege in excuse that we have advanced nothing but, what is true.

John Wesley's Commentary (available from this source) says almost exactly the same thing as Matthew Henry does.

Adam Clarke's Commentary (available from this source) says:
Verse 16. . . . Not only false oaths, to deprive a man of his life or of his right, are here prohibited, but all whispering, tale-bearing, slander, and calumny; in a word, whatever is deposed as a truth, which is false in fact, and tends to injure another in his goods, person, or character, is against the spirit and letter of this law.
Suppressing the truth when known, by which a person may be defrauded of his property or his good name, or lie under injuries or disabilities which a discovery of the truth would have prevented, is also a crime against this law. He who bears a false testimony against or belies even the devil himself, comes under the curse of this law, because his testimony is false.
By the term neighbour any human being is intended, whether he rank among our enemies or friends.

These three do not completely agree, but they do agree on this -- speaking deceitfully in such a way as to damage a neighbor's reputation is the most serious violation of this commandment. Of the three, only Henry includes plain vanilla lying.

The Blueletter Bible gives access to several different Bible translations, including the King James, the New King James, the NLT, the NIV, the NASB, and the ESV. None of those 12 English translations of Exodus 20:16 say "You shall not lie." All of them use a variation of the more restrictive "You shall not give false witness." As indicated above, deliberately damaging a neighbor's reputation by speaking falsely seems to be the thrust of the Commandment. That doesn't mean that God normally allows telling a lie. He doesn't. But, most likely, lying in such a way as to damage someone's reputation, and to undermine the system of justice, is particularly dangerous. (Similarly, there are many varieties of sexual sin, but only adultery is mentioned in the Ten Commandments.) 

The discussion below documents the fact that, as a general rule, lying is a sin. But there seem to have been Biblical examples of deliberate falsehood, sanctioned by God. None of them damaged someone else's reputation. Most of them were to protect innocent parties.

Is lying -- deliberate deceit -- ever permissible?
The Wikipedia article on "lie" (there is no article on "lying") says, as of February 4, 2014: A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally . . .

The Wikipedia article goes on to say that there have been important thinkers who have believed that lying is never permissible, including St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Immanuel Kant. See here for more on Kant and lying. Kant even held that it is wrong to lie to a vicious killer who comes to the door and asks, about an innocent person that you think he wants to kill, "Is so-and-so home?" For further discussion of Kant on lying, see here and here.

The Bible seems to indicate that lying is usually, possibly always, sinful. Here are links to the passages I have found that indicate this (All links to the Bible are to the ESV, as the World English Bible doesn't have provision for linking to particular verses.):

Exodus 23:1 “You shall not spread a false report. Don’t join your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness.
2 “You shall not follow a crowd to do evil. You shall not testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice. 

In Joshua 7:11, when Achan took loot against God's command, his disobedience, his taking, and his lying were apparently all sinful.

Leviticus 6:1-7 says that lying and deceit which result in loss of property to another are sins, and restitution must be made.

Leviticus 19:11 says, in part, "you shall not lie to one another."

Psalm 5:6 says that God destroys liars and abhors deceitful people.

Here's Psalm 101:7:
He who practices deceit won’t dwell within my house.
He who speaks falsehood won’t be established before my eyes.
Proverbs 12:22 says that God abhors lying lips.

Proverbs 19:9 condemns false witnesses and liars.

Proverbs 21:6 says that getting property by deceit leads to death.

in Jeremiah 27:12-16, Jeremiah condemns false prophets for their lies.

These, of course, are all Old Testament scriptures. The New Testament also has harsh words for deceit.

In John 8:44, Jesus says that the Devil is the father of lies.

In Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira died because they lied to the Holy Spirit.

In Colossians 3:9, Paul tells Christians not to lie to each other.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 includes both liars and perjurers in a list of types of sinners.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 says that the time will come when some believers will "depart from the faith" due to the influence of demons, deceitful spirits, and liars.

Revelation 21:8 places "all liars" into the lake of fire, with murderers and other sinners.

This is not a pretty picture. It is possible that deceit is sometimes allowed by God, generally to protect someone else from evil, but generally, it is not. There is no scriptural evidence that it is ever all right to selfishly advance your own interests by lying, or that it is ever all right to harm an innocent party by lying. In most, maybe even all cases, lying is sinful.

Occasions where God seems to have allowed, or condoned deceit
Genesis 12:10 There was a famine in the land. Abram went down into Egypt to live as a foreigner there, for the famine was severe in the land. 11 When he had come near to enter Egypt, he said to Sarai his wife, “See now, I know that you are a beautiful woman to look at. 12 It will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ They will kill me, but they will save you alive. 13 Please say that you are my sister, that it may be well with me for your sake, and that my soul may live because of you.” See similar occasions in Genesis 20:2, and 26:7. In each of these cases, Abraham tried to make someone believe that Sarah was his sister, not his wife. (This was partly true, as she was his half-sister, but the intent was to deceive -- she was his wife.)

*Exodus 1:15 The king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah, 16 and he said, “When you perform the duty of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them on the birth stool; if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” 17 But the midwives feared God, and didn’t do what the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the baby boys alive. 18 The king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and have saved the boys alive?”
19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women aren’t like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous, and give birth before the midwife comes to them.”
20 God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied, and grew very mighty. 21 Because the midwives feared God, he gave them families.

*Rahab lied to the army of Jericho, telling them that the Israeli spies had left, when she had hidden them, in Joshua 2:1-21. Hebrews 11:31 lists Rahab as one of the heroines of faith. (Abraham, described above, is also listed as an example of faith in Hebrews 11.)

*1 Samuel 16:1 Yahweh said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go. I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite; for I have provided a king for myself among his sons.”
2 Samuel said, “How can I go? If Saul hears it, he will kill me.”
Yahweh said, “Take a heifer with you, and say, I have come to sacrifice to Yahweh. 3 Call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do. You shall anoint to me him whom I name to you.”
4a Samuel did that which Yahweh spoke, and came to Bethlehem. God told Samuel to say that he had come to Bethlehem to offer a sacrifice (which he did) but that wasn't his main purpose. Nor was it the original reason that Samuel was told to go to Bethlehem.

In 1 Samuel 21:1-6, David lied to the high priest about the purpose of his journey, which was to escape from Saul, rather than to go on a special mission for him, which latter is what David said. The high priest was killed for giving David help, which he had done in innocence -- he believed David.

*1 Kings 13:1 Behold, a man of God came out of Judah by Yahweh’s word to Beth El; and Jeroboam was standing by the altar to burn incense. 2 He cried against the altar by Yahweh’s word, and said, “Altar! Altar! Yahweh says: ‘Behold, a son will be born to David’s house, Josiah by name. On you he will sacrifice the priests of the high places who burn incense on you, and they will burn men’s bones on you.’” 3 He gave a sign the same day, saying, “This is the sign which Yahweh has spoken: Behold, the altar will be split apart, and the ashes that are on it will be poured out.”
4 When the king heard the saying of the man of God, which he cried against the altar in Bethel, Jeroboam put out his hand from the altar, saying, “Seize him!” His hand, which he put out against him, dried up, so that he could not draw it back again to himself. 5 The altar was also split apart, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by Yahweh’s word. 6 The king answered the man of God, “Now intercede for the favor of Yahweh your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored me again.”
The man of God interceded with Yahweh, and the king’s hand was restored to him again, and became as it was before.
7 The king said to the man of God, “Come home with me, and refresh yourself, and I will give you a reward.”
8 The man of God said to the king, “Even if you gave me half of your house, I would not go in with you, neither would I eat bread nor drink water in this place; 9 for so was it commanded me by Yahweh’s word, saying, ‘You shall eat no bread, drink no water, and don’t return by the way that you came.’” 10 So he went another way, and didn’t return by the way that he came to Bethel.
11 Now an old prophet lived in Bethel, and one of his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel. They also told their father the words which he had spoken to the king.
12 Their father said to them, “Which way did he go?” Now his sons had seen which way the man of God went, who came from Judah. 13 He said to his sons, “Saddle the donkey for me.” So they saddled the donkey for him; and he rode on it. 14 He went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak. He said to him, “Are you the man of God who came from Judah?”
He said, “I am.” 15 Then he said to him, “Come home with me, and eat bread.”
16 He said, “I may not return with you, nor go in with you. I will not eat bread or drink water with you in this place. 17 For it was said to me by Yahweh’s word, ‘You shall eat no bread or drink water there, and don’t turn again to go by the way that you came.’”
18 He said to him, “I also am a prophet as you are; and an angel spoke to me by Yahweh’s word, saying, ‘Bring him back with you into your house, that he may eat bread and drink water.’” He lied to him.
19 So he went back with him, ate bread in his house, and drank water. 20 As they sat at the table, Yahweh’s word came to the prophet who brought him back; 21 and he cried out to the man of God who came from Judah, saying, “Yahweh says, ‘Because you have been disobedient to Yahweh’s mouth, and have not kept the commandment which Yahweh your God commanded you, 22 but came back, and have eaten bread and drank water in the place of which he said to you, “Eat no bread, and drink no water”; your body will not come to the tomb of your fathers.’”
23 After he had eaten bread, and after he drank, he saddled the donkey for the prophet whom he had brought back. 24 When he had gone, a lion met him by the way and killed him. His body was thrown on the path, and the donkey stood by it. The lion also stood by the body. 25 Behold, men passed by, and saw the body thrown on the path, and the lion standing by the body; and they came and told it in the city where the old prophet lived. 26 When the prophet who brought him back from the way heard of it, he said, “It is the man of God who was disobedient to Yahweh’s mouth. Therefore Yahweh has delivered him to the lion, which has mauled him and slain him, according to Yahweh’s word, which he spoke to him.” 27 He said to his sons, saying, “Saddle the donkey for me,” and they saddled it. 28 He went and found his body thrown on the path, and the donkey and the lion standing by the body. The lion had not eaten the body, nor mauled the donkey. 29 The prophet took up the body of the man of God, and laid it on the donkey, and brought it back. He came to the city of the old prophet to mourn, and to bury him. 30 He laid his body in his own grave; and they mourned over him, saying, “Alas, my brother!”
31 After he had buried him, he spoke to his sons, saying, “When I am dead, bury me in the tomb in which the man of God is buried. Lay my bones beside his bones. 32 For the saying which he cried by Yahweh’s word against the altar in Bethel, and against all the houses of the high places which are in the cities of Samaria, will surely happen.” (See 2 Kings 23, where the word of the old prophet was fulfilled, and the tomb of the  two prophets is mentioned again.)

In 1 Kings 22:1-39, God is described, by a prophet, Micaiah, who is speaking for God, as having put a lying spirit in the mouth of King Ahab's pagan prophets. (It is possible that Micaiah didn't understand where the lying spirit came from, or that he was just telling a story, because he knew that the pagan priests were liars.)

*In 2 Kings 6:8-23, Elisha struck an enemy army with temporary blindness, through God's power, then lied to them about where he was taking them. The blindness was removed, at which time they knew they had been lied to, and these men were unharmed.

Jehu, on a mission of meting out God's punishment, in 2 Kings 9:1-26, says that he has come in peace, when he has not.

In Jeremiah 38:24-28, the king asks Jeremiah about his fate. Jeremiah prophesies, telling him. The king commands Jeremiah to say that he has been speaking to the king about something else, namely Jeremiah's fate, and Jeremiah complies.

Some allege that, in John 7:1-10, Jesus lied to his disciples, saying that He was not going to a feast, when He did go in a day or so. This case seems to me to be, at best, ambiguous. I include it here for completeness, not because I believe that Jesus lied in this case.

*The evidence that God allowed, or condoned, or even suggested deceit seems to be unambiguous, in the cases marked with an asterisk.

I don't believe that any of the cases above show any evidence of deceit for selfish reasons. In several of the cases, the intent was to protect someone else from harm.

I am not aware of any certain example of anyone, who is clearly approved by God, lying in the New Testament. I conclude, with grave reservations, that Kant was wrong about the murderer -- it is sometimes acceptable to deceive, if the main purpose is to advance God's kingdom, or to protect an innocent party. Deceiving deliberately to get out of some situation we have gotten ourselves in, or for some sort of gain, be it power, fame, romance, or material goods, is sinful.

I find no scriptural allowance for lying when giving testimony in court, which would be a violation of the ninth Commandment.

"White lies"
Suppose someone asks you "How do I look?" and you are convinced that he doesn't really want to know, but wants to be affirmed by you. He wants you to say "You look fine." Are you lying if you tell him what he wants to hear, when you don't really think he looks especially fine? That's a hard question. If you do say that he looks fine, is your intent to deceive, or to reassure? Most of the time, it's to reassure. If we said that the person really didn't look very good, they might be devastated, and for no good purpose. I'm not sure that sort of thing is sinful. There are, of course, many variations of this -- such as commenting on someone's cooking, or on some sort of performance.

Summary
When in doubt, tell the truth. It is possible that not telling the truth is the right thing to do, in rare cases, but they are extremely rare. If we aren't careful, we might try to rationalize lying to cover up our own misdeeds, or to gain an unfair advantage. That's always sinful. Lying in such a way as to undermine the justice system, or to damage someone else's reputation, is particularly condemned, and included in the Ten Commandments.

This is a long post. It was modified a little on July 20, 2014. Thanks to anyone who read it!

Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card

Ender's Game (1985, by Orson Scott Card, and based on a 1977 short story) was, and is, an important science fiction book. See here for its Wikipedia article -- the book won both the Nebula and Hugo awards. The book has been adapted for a movie, which is to come out tomorrow. I have not seen the movie, but I like the list of actors -- Harrison Ford, Ben Kingsley, Abigail Breslin, Hailee Steinfeld, Viola Davis. I don't see many movies, but I have seen all of these people in one or more, and like their work. I may see this one. Card, himself, has been deeply involved in the script of the film.

Amazon recently advertised the Kindle edition of the book. I purchased it, and I'm glad that I did. I hadn't read the book in a decade or two, and it's a good read. Also, the new edition includes a fine introduction by Card, about the book, and other things. Here's an excerpt:

Why else do we read fiction, anyway? Not to be impressed by somebody’s dazzling language—or at least I hope that’s not our reason. I think that most of us, anyway, read these stories that we know are not “true” because we’re hungry for another kind of truth: The mythic truth about human nature in general, the particular truth about those life-communities that define our own identity, and the most specific truth of all: our own self-story. Fiction, because it is not about somebody who actually lived in the real world, always has the possibility of being about ourself.

What is the book about? Before I give a brief summary, some broad themes:

Relationships. I would say that extended family relationships is the most common theme I have encountered in Card's books, almost so much that his science fiction and alternate history tales are, in large part, vehicles for portrayal of that.
War, and some of the ways it warps our morals.
Teaching children to stick up for themselves by not backing them up.
What it's like to be an exceptionally intelligent child.
Bullying.
How we might interact with aliens.

There are some interesting science fiction ideas in the book. One of them is the ansible, a device for communicating instantaneously with others, not matter how far, really far away they are. Ursula K. LeGuin seems to have invented this device, in her equally important science fiction novel The Dispossessed. Another one is the alien species that Card describes sketchily in Ender's Game.

There is no explicit religion in the book, except for some Bible quotations, and a mention of the religions of Ender's parents, one of them a Mormon, one a Catholic. (Card is a Mormon.) No one prays or goes to church. There is a high moral tone, or at least recognition that some things are right.

Now, for a summary. Don't say that I didn't warn you! Spoilers included.

Before the book starts, humans have encountered an alien race, insect-like, the buggers, a few decades earlier. They defeated them, but believe that the buggers may come back, with better weapons. Mazer Rackham was the military leader who defeated them the first time.

Ender is a six-year-old boy, highly intelligent. He, and others, all over the earth, have been monitored by the army, who is looking for children who are flexible enough in their thinking, intelligent, and physically adept, to train so that they can lead the fight against the buggers, when they return. A bully attacks him, and he believes that the only way he can stop this bully is to defeat him utterly. He does, but, although Ender doesn't realize it, he kills the bully. He is given the opportunity to go to Battle School, a satellite where such children will be trained in free fall group war games, with the understanding that he won't see his family for years.

Ender's brother, Peter, is a highly intelligent sadist. His sister, Valentine, is a highly intelligent good person. He will miss her, and hates to leave her at Peter's mercy, but accepts.

Ender becomes the best leader in Battle School. Again, a bully attacks, and Ender defends himself, so thoroughly that he kills the bully, although Ender doesn't realize this. The adult leaders of Battle School want Ender to understand that he is on his own -- if something bad happens, he has no one but himself to count on. I wonder how the movie will handle the two bullying/retaliation scenes, if at all?

Ender is so good at the games, especially at leading others to be effective, that he is sent to Eros, where he takes part in more drills to fight the buggers. Eventually, Mazer Rackham becomes his teacher. (Rackham has been traveling at near-light speed, so that he can still be helpful in the next battle with the buggers.)

As you might expect, Ender, and several colleagues from Battle School, who have joined him on Eros, eventually defeat the buggers. But there are a couple of surprises in that defeat, which I won't give away.

Ender is such a hero that he can't really go back to earth. His future, traveling with Valentine, makes up a part of four additional novels. So do the lives of some of his colleagues at Battle School.

In my opinion, the most important of the succeeding novels is Speaker for the Dead, the next novel. For more on that, and other Enderverse books, see here.

Thanks for reading