Ethics graphonic_lies

Published on November 19th, 2012 | by Gary DeMar


Is It Ever Okay to Lie?

A number of critics of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have criticized the Pentagon’s “use of deception and disinformation against enemies, real or imagined, abroad.” The question is, In a time of war, should governments always tell the truth to the enemy? The architects of the D-Day invasion, for example, used deception to mislead the Nazis. Was this wrong? Is wearing camouflage, a form of deception, unethical? Should soldiers put on bright red coats and fight in open fields face to face? How about secret codes? Was it immoral to engage a group of Navajo Indians to encrypt radio messages in their native language to confuse the Japanese code breakers during WW II? Winston Churchill may have said it best: “In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” We can go further? Is it ever right to lie or misinform a civil government? What does the Bible say? [product id="1430" align="right" size="small"]

The place to begin in the development of a doctrine of resistance is with the Old Testament. “It is precisely because the state is a divine(1) institution that its authority is not absolute. . . . Once government oversteps those bounds—when it interferes with the life of the church or demands compliance with unjust laws, for example—it exceeds its God-ordained boundaries.”(2) The Bible includes examples of faithful believers who resisted claims by civil magistrates to obey unjust laws.

The Hebrew midwives were commanded by “the king of Egypt” to put to death all the male children being born to the Hebrew women (Ex. 1:15–16). The Hebrew midwives disobeyed the edict of the king: “But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live” (1:17). The midwives had to make a choice. Did God’s law overrule the command of a king, even “the king of Egypt”? God shows His approval of their actions: “So God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty. And it came about because the midwives feared God, that He established households for them” (1:20-21).

In 1560, the Geneva Bible was published. Between 1560 and 1644, at least 144 editions appeared. The Geneva Bible was also called the “Puritan Bible” because it was popular with Christians who opposed certain actions of the English monarchy. In addition to being a fresh English translation, the Geneva Bible included notes on certain texts. King James I, whose name is associated with a later popular translation of the Bible, the King James Version (1611), disliked the Geneva Bible because of the specific nature of some of its notes. “The later vilification of marginal notes,” David Daniell writes in his history of the English Bible, “especially by the politicians controlling King James in the early 1600s, was from fear of the working of this sovereign God in places outside the fence of what was narrowly understood as the only apostolic Christianity.”(3) They expressly disliked the way it condemned rulers who acted contrary to God’s Word. For example, a marginal note for Exodus 1:19 stated that the Hebrew midwives were correct to disobey the Egyptian king’s order to kill the Hebrew babies. The king reasoned that if it was legitimate to oppose a ruler on one decree, then it was legitimate to oppose him on others. This is why King James professed, “I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is worst.”(4)

Jochebed, Moses’ mother, also disobeyed the edict of the king by hiding her child and later creating a way of escape for him so he would not be murdered by the king’s army: “But when she could hide him no longer, she got him a wicker basket and covered it over with tar and pitch. Then she put the child into it, and set it among the reeds by the bank of the Nile” (2:3). Jochebed even deceived Pharaoh’s daughter into believing that she, Jochebed, was in no way related to the child (2:7-9). Surely Jochebed was right in her defiance. [product id="1292" align="right" size="small"]

Rahab Hides the Two Spies

Rahab hid the spies of Israel and lied about their whereabouts. When a route for escape became available, she led them out another way from that of the pursuing soldiers. The king issued a command to Rahab: “Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the land” (Josh. 2:3). She disobeyed a direct command of the “king of Jericho.” Some want to maintain that Rahab was right in “welcoming the spies in peace” (Heb. 11:31), but she was wrong in lying about the whereabouts of the spies. The following is a representative example:

We see, therefore, that neither Scripture itself nor the theological inferences derived from Scripture provide us with any warrant for the vindication of Rahab’s untruth and this instance, consequently, does not support the position that under certain circumstances we may justifiably utter an untruth.(5)

“Welcoming them in peace” means that they would not fall in the hands of the king of Jericho which would have meant certain death. Rahab had changed her allegiance from Jericho to Israel. Conditions of war were operating. If she had told the truth to the men seeking the two spies, then she would have been an accomplice in their deaths (cf. Psalm 50:18).

There is another point that is often missed in this story about Rahab’s lie. “Joshua the son of Nun sent two men as spies secretly from Shittim. . . (Josh. 2:1). The text continues by telling us that “they went and came into the house of a harlot whose name was Rahab, and lodged there.” Did they announce that they were Israelite spies? Joshua says the operation was to be done “secretly,” that is, without revealing the truth of their mission. Are not “spies” in the business of lying? Why was Joshua right in sending men to spy out the land, while Rahab was wrong in lying about the route the spies took? Why were the spies right in hiding and Rahab wrong in not revealing where they were hiding? Is not that an act of deception? Why didn’t they rebuke Rahab for lying? Why didn’t the spies leave by the same route they entered the city? Instead, they were accomplices in Rahab’s lie by allowing her to “let them down by a rope through the window” (2:15).

[product id="1518" align="left" size="small"]Rahab is praised by two New Testament writers for her actions: “By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace” (Heb. 11:31). Rahab is listed with Abraham as one whose faith was reflected in her works: “And in the same way [as Abraham] was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works, when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?” (James 2:25). By sending the spies out by another way, she subverted the king’s desire to capture the spies. God commended Rahab for deception. Again, the circumstances were atypical. “The critics of Rahab’s lie apparently think her case is analogous to David’s adultery with Bathsheba, a union which ultimately produced Solomon. We are not, of course, bound to praise David’s action simply because Solomon’s rule produced many desirable results (such as the construction of God’s temple). We are specifically told that David’s adultery was abhorrent in the eyes of God; we are not so informed about Rahab’s actions.”(6)

So then, from this brief analysis of the Old Testament, there are times when it is appropriate to lie, and a time of war is one of those times. Those who are trying to kill us do not deserve the truth.Endnotes:

  1. The author is using the word “divine” to mean “divinely ordained.”()
  2. H. Wayne House, “The Christian’s Duty of Civil Disobedience to the Government: Contemporary Struggles Between Christians and the State,” The Christian and American Law: Christianity’s Impact on America’s Founding Documents and Future Direction, ed. H. Wayne House (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 149.()
  3. David Daniell, The Bible in English: Its History and Influence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), 309.()
  4. Gary DeMar, Reformation to Colonization (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1997), 247. Also see Daniel J. Ford, In the Name of God, Amen: Rediscovering Biblical and Historical Covenants (St. Louis, MO: Lex Rex Publishing, 2003), 41.()
  5. John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (London, England: The Tyndale Press, 1957), 139.()
  6. Gary North, “In Defense of Biblical Bribery,” in Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), 841.()
Print Friendly

About the Author

Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He is the author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, His most recent book is Exposing the Real Last Days Scoffers. Gary lives in Marietta, Georgia, with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and four grandchildren, Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).

28 Responses to Is It Ever Okay to Lie?

  1. Rodolfo says:

    Hi Gary,

    During my managerial stint in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia back in the 1990-1997, a lot of Christian underground churches got busted stemming from the wrong notion that Christians are not to tell a lie when questioned by authorities for they are “God’s delegated authorities”!!! Having read the book(Christianity&Civilization), “Tactics of Christian Resistance”(before I left for Riyadh), I introduced w/in & w/out our Bible study group the Biblical rationale why Christians should tell a lie, use deceit, fraud, “smoke screen”, etc. if only to protect God’s work in a hostile environment-culture that’s very unfriendly to Christianity. Memory serves well, methinks it was RJ Rushdoony who said:” Disobedience to civil authorities is allowed IF its based on a prior obedience to an absolute God”. It stirred a bit of controversy for a while but later on most of the Christians there were enlightened. You’ll never how far the CRM’s contribution to His Kingdom stretches & outreaches. God is Sovereign indeed.

    Thanx for posting this one Gary…..



  2. BC says:

    I found this post very interesting. Frankly, I was hoping to read a post that argued the exact opposite view! I have a good friend that holds a very similar view and we have debated this before. Having AV take my side would have been great! However, maybe I can learn something. Here are the areas that give me pause:

    1) Hebrew midwives: First of all they disobeyed the Pharaoh because his command was a violation of the 6th commandment not to murder. Then when they were confronted by him the question is did they really lie? They did not say, that they did do it when they didn’t. They did not say that they tried when they really did not. They just gave an excuse why they did not do what they were told. Then the text says that “God dealt well with them”. This implies that Pharaoh let them off the hook with that excuse. Was the excuse a lie?? I find this hard to say for sure was a “purposeful deception” (as a lie is defined by Augustine). Maybe it was, but the text does not give us full disclosure to be sure. I take that Pharaoh apparently accepted their excuse to be the fulfillment of the phrase “God dealt well this them”, in that he rewarded, not their excuse or potential lie, but rather He rewarded their faithfulness to obey God rather than man – and, they did it so that they were eventually called to task such that they risked their lives to do so. Given this, I find the midwives a weak argument.

    2) Jochebed: While I can agree that this mother did the correct/lawful thing to hide the baby Moses in defiance of an unbiblical edit by the Pharaoh, I see nothing in the text that indicates that she purposefully deceived the princess about her being the mother. (at least not in the passages noted in the post) The princess was the one that asked about a nurse and Jochebed was indeed nursing at the time and could fulfill that role. In fact, I see it as a wonderful act of Providence that she was given the gift of her son back and was paid to love and nourish him to boot!

    3) Rahab – At first this would seem to be the strongest of your character examples, but I think that even here this falls short. Rahab hid the men in defiance of the king. This is not a lie. Rahab sent the men out to evade the king. This is not a lie. These are both more similar to what Jochabed and the midwives did in defying the orders of a superior. But then Rahab DOES lie to those that came looking for the men and then also lies about which way to go and look for them. But this particular action is no where acknowledged scriptural as being okay. Both of the NT mentions of Rahab are in reference to her “receiving” the spies and then helping them evade capture by giving them good directions so as to be able to return successfully – not by her lies to the authorities. Her “faith” was praised. This does not necessarily mean that all her actions were justifiable or praiseworthy.

    4) Samuel: Some point to Samuel as a possible example to support situational acceptance of lying. Samuel was afraid to do what God told him, so God gave him instructions that would keep it from being apparent to Saul what he was doing. In this Samuel was told by God to say what he did. In fact, He told him to take a heifer and ACTUALLY sacrifice it with Jessie. So how is this lying? He said that he came to sacrifice and he did sacrifice. PLUS, God told him to say it and do it. That in itself should be enough to satisfy us that the statement was true – God would not have told him specifically to sin… that would have been acting against His own nature.

    The commandment is given “do not bear false witness against your neighbor”. Given that the moral law – summarized in the two greatest commandments and then expanded via the Decalog and even further by the OT case laws – is in it’s entirety based on the character of God, I find it difficult to accept that any instance of purposefully breaking the moral law can be justified.

    Finally, most of the arguments that I have heard in defense of at least similar (if not the same) position on lying seem to be rooted in a breakdown of faith in the Providence of God. Usually the instances that are contrived to question the necessity of complete obedience to the law of God end up being highly emotional and those expressing them begin to believe that it becomes up to them to “save the day”. And, as a result, they typically can only think of the “logical” outcomes from firmly adhering to God’s law (in this case, telling the truth). This is a rejection of the Providence that “with God all things are possible”, and that it might be that it is His good will that the undesirable (in our minds) result of obedience is in actuality the best.

    All this said, I must confess that I have not studied this deeply enough to have a clear answer on the validity of the use of spies or other purposeful deception (feints, mock camps/equipment, etc.) in a time of war against an enemy. However, I am confident that there is a biblical explanation/position that does not contradict the law of God. In fact, it might be that the Samuel example is a good place to start. It seems from this example that as long as one does as he says that he is (i.e. sacrifice the heifer) then if one’s actions are misinterpreted by another that is not direct deceit. In these cases it would seem that the interpretation by the other party would be dictated by the Providence of God, while a direct and purposeful lie (“I my family is not here” while the whole time they really are) not only is an unlawful action but also takes God’s Providence into one’s own hands in effect playing god.

    These are just my thoughts.

    Thanks for all you do at AV. Keep up the good work.

  3. Matt says:

    Great article, lying is ok under certain circumstances in the Bible, many pastors get this wrong.

  4. Don says:

    One “nit” about the article: “How about secret codes? Was it immoral to engage a group of Navajo Indians to encrypt radio messages in their native language to confuse the Japanese code breakers during WW II?” Uh, encryption is not lying. These people were speaking the truth, but not in a way that the enemy would understand. This can not be equated with lying. Otherwise, if you speak a language other than English and prefer to use that language around others with someone who also speaks it, then you are “lying.” What an absurd stretch of the word.

  5. JoelW says:

    But it seems we’re always at war so we’re always hearing lies; and besides, the real question is not whether lying to combatant enemies is justified, but whether lying to one’s own fellow citizens for political advantage is justified.

    • Arrow says:

      Yeah, this really makes me scratch my head. I keep wondering if the next article is the one about how we have a prophetic mission to protect Israel.

      • E Harris says:

        Let nobody say that we don’t have Occupy types in our midst…or at least a wide-open commonality with them on the anti-semitic front.

        You go tooo far to the right, and you begin crossing over into far left field, crying about Zionism (how we should just END the Jewish state RIGHT NOW without any backup plan) & Jewish Capitalists taking over the media & banking world or whatnot… And how Jewish property needs to be “re-distributed” (basically, by default, that is what is implied).

      • Arrow says:


        You worry too much about labels.

        Why don’t we just seek the truth in all things, and not worry about whether it “leads us right” or “leads us left”, etc. etc.

        Second, you made up a whole paragraph of things that I didn’t say, and acted as thought I said them. Why did you do that? Some of them are things that I would certainly not say.

      • E Harris says:

        Arrow, what are your opinions on the Jewish State? What would YOU do if you had 100% influence? This is something the ‘anti-Zionists’ never talk about. They only ridicule and critique…as if a vacuum had substance (as if violence would instantly stop the moment Israel stopped protecting her borders, and stopped existing as a defineable nation-state).

        I find that many within the Ron Paul crowd are actually very chummy with the Occupy crowd (in person), and are Occupy-lite! Many Occupiers , Muslims, and Ron Paulites hold eerily similar views on the nation-state called Israel; The Fed; Uncle Sam’s culpability for causing problems around the world; our relationship to natural law and governing authorities; etc.

        I’m sick of those who treat conservatives and Israel, the same way that Preterists treat Partial Preterists. With vacuous contempt.

      • Arrow says:


        First, as I suggested, it is misleading to think in terms of labels. If someone yelled at you “LOOK OUT!” as a bus was about to run you down, would you say “he’s an “occupy” guy, I’ll ignore it”?

        So, the issue is not whether a “Ron Paul person” (our philosophies certainly pre-dated RP) agrees with an “occupy” person about Israel, or anything else; the issue is whether the state of Israel is doing what is right. Do you agree that if an “occupy” person makes the correct observation, you and I should agree with him?

        Second, I do not have all the answers to the Israel situation. There are no easy or good solutions to a problem with so many bitter roots. So, we have to ask both sides, as best they can, to do right.

        It is not right to run people out of their homes, kill many of them, and take their land. Much of what is done is done and cannot be undone. For that, the Palestinians need to swallow their pride, man up, and move forward. Some are willing to do that, some are not.

        But what’s NOT done does not have to continue. It iS possible to undo some of the injustices, and it is certainly possible to discontinue further injustices. I think that many Israelis see this, but their government wants no part of it.

        Their government, like our, is godless and corrupt. Therein lies our disagreement, I guess; you seem far more willing to “go along ot get along” than many others. We can’t change thjings with the snap of a finger, but we certainly can’t change things by arguing that they should remain the same.

        Both sides must make genuine concessions, and I’m not sure why you don’t think that the Palestinians have some legitimate complaints that need to be addresses…as I said, with enough compromise so as to be fair to both sides.

      • E Harris says:

        I’m not a strong believer in labels either. However, many labels or names (or words, for that matter) are meant to portray certain sets of values, meanings, principles…so that we can distinguish between one thing and another. So while I may like to say that I’m just a “christian” sometimes, I must confess what particular elements I borrow from where and from whom. We use names/logos/labels in order to give credit where credit is due, or in order to be honest about who our friends are. (That’s a good thing.) We use words to describe the intent and meaning…and birds of a feather tend to flock together.

        As for the Israel issue, I have no problem with a Jew owning property or defending himself. By the looks of it, neither do you. I have no problem if a bunch of Jews get together, have a state (which also has some Arabic, Christian, and secular citizens), and defend themselves as a state, against aggressors who would like to kill all Jews.

        Killing Jews is specifically mandated in the Quran. Some muslims believe these verses enough to carry them out on a regular basis. If I were you, I wouldn’t be wasting my time disparaging the state of Israel for its existence… and then turn around and say that you have no easy answers. Obviously there needs to be peace, because people need peace. But how to get there from here? Same thing can be said in any conflict. How do you settle a feud between two armed factions? By saying that they should both be disarmed? That would only empower the one who consistently finds a way around your advice. America settled the West, and it was eventually relatively peaceful: despite a culture of firearms. Why? Because of Christian ethic first and foremost – and because everyone had a firearm and would defend themselves with lethal force against any attacker, no matter who it was.

        Fact is, there are bullies in this world. And not all bullies are the ones with the big guns. Sometimes bullies are the ones who wait until the teacher isn’t looking “Punch Buggy!” And then when you ‘ramp up’ to defend yourself, they scream to get the teacher’s attention: “Truce!! Truce!! Teacher, he’s trying to hit me.” Playground tactics. But the bully will do it again. The truce means nothing. And you will have to defend yourself, in seriousness. In fact, if you are going to remain in the playground (geographically) with any level of peace, it is your duty to defend yourself somehow.

        Hamas obviously are bad guys. And those helping to arm Hamas or defend Hamas (without rebuking them!) are acting on their behalf. Period.

        Peace through strength. That’s the Reagan solution. Speak softly, carry a big stick, trust but verify. And if someone kills your citizens: you must retaliate with enough force to make the bully think twice before he even dares try it again. When the borders are peaceful…THEN we can talk about de-militarizing them. But first: those doing evil must stop and have a proven track record such that it can believed that they will NEVER to it again. Last I checked, Hamas and Hezbollah and others cannot even hold off their bombs for a year. Not even six months. Scarcely even 3 months.

        How is the Israeli civil government godless and corrupt, any more than any other nation-state?? I’d like to hear this one. What have THEY done that any other gov’t wouldn’t like to do, if in their position? WWYD? What Would YOU Do?? C’mon.

        Are you just disturbed because they call themselves Israel, and that disturbs your hermeneutic? Or they say they want to rebuild a temple on a temple mount, and you fear how that would appear to disturb your Biblical hermeneutic? Or maybe your upset that the Jews are even still culturally Jewish AT ALL (or even secular), and haven’t turned to Christ yet? I would think that KEEPING THEM ALIVE long enough to turn to Jesus, would be a priority! LET them defend themselves. Get on with your life. Jews are people too! No better, no worse.

      • Arrow says:

        E, I now understand why you hold your viewpoints on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

        You say: ” I have no problem if a bunch of Jews get together, have a state (which also has some Arabic, Christian, and secular citizens), and defend themselves as a state, against aggressors who would like to kill all Jews.”

        From that, it is obvious that you have no idea what the Palestinians are upset about. Did you know that in 1948, they were thrown off their land by violent force, many were killed, entire villages were destroyed, and they have lived in refugee camps ever since? You should read about it, Look it up. I do hope that you did not already know that and that’s what you meant by “have a state”.

        You asked: “How is the Israeli civil government godless and corrupt, any more than any other nation-state?? I’d like to hear this one.”

        First, I reject your usual sliding-scale” ethics, where one is compared to someone worse, then declared “good enough”.

        Then, to answer your question:

        1) Many high ranking officials are atheists.
        2) Many high ranking officials are nominally Jewish and do not practice Judaism in any conventional way.
        3) Even if they did, it would be meaningless since Christ is God and they reject Him.
        If all that isn’t enough (it is):
        4) They sponsor and pay for abortions, and have very liberal views on homosexuality
        5) Open practice of Christianity is limited by law.

        If that’s your idea of a godly nation we have no more to discuss.

      • Arrow says:

        Furthermore, E:

        You say: “Are you just disturbed because they call themselves Israel, and that disturbs your hermeneutic? Or they say they want to rebuild a temple on a temple mount, and you fear how that would appear to disturb your Biblical hermeneutic?”

        Not at all. They can call themselves anything they want, and build a NASCAR track over the Church of the Nativity if they wish, and it does not change the meaning of God’s Word one iota…none, zero, zilch. Who are they, or you, or I to force God’s hand?

        You said: “Get on with your life. Jews are people too! No better, no worse”, which is a wicked and arrogant insinuation. I have said NOTHING anti-semitic, and your cheap shot at claiming false high ground is laughable.

      • E Harris says:

        Arrow, have you ever met a refugee that was a refugee FROM 1948??!

        Usually… after about 64 years… a refugee has a home SOMEWHERE. And even if he is a refugee, his children are not considered refugees. They are living wherever they are living. This Palestinian identity is carefully DOCTORED, MANUFACTURED, and SUSTAINED. These people are (truly) hostages and pawns for the worldwide muslim-jew conflict (which is commanded by the Quran). It has nothing to do with land, living situations, or whatnot. If so, in these 64 years, their muslim brethren (not to mention concessions from Israel) would have satisfied them. They’ve had a world-class mall in Gaza, I believe. It’s not like they are incapable of carrying on, because of the blockade (which helps keep WEAPONS away from a stone’s throw of Israeli cities).

        This “Palestinian identity” is a half-truth, at best. They are not kept (by Israel) from settling down, living in peace & security, having commerce & improving their lives. They are kept from this by THEIR DOCTRINE, THEIR LEADERS, and the TERRORISTS AMONG THEM.

        Refugees from 1948… and their median age is probably 47.

      • E Harris says:

        How would you treat the armed (with US guns) and violent drug cartels on the US/Mexican border?

        Would you allow them to cross the border, indiscriminately?

        Would you allow them to shoot at US citizens from inside of Mexico?

        What course of action would you suggest for what some would say is one of the most violent borders in the world (US/Mexico) which also has evidence of Hezbollah activity mixed with the drug cartels?

      • Arrow says:

        E, you say: ” It has nothing to do with land, living situations, or whatnot.”

        You are miserably misinformed. You don’t know the first thing about what is gong on. You need to educate yourself from some sources different from the ones you have experienced in the past.

        Yes, I have met people from over there. I have seen them cry about their elderly parent’s home being taken over by Israelis. Not in 1948, but just within the last ten years. I hear about what they have to put up with. Palestinian homes are STILL being bulldozed today. Palestinians lack water at times, directly due to restrictions and deliberate Israeli policy.

        You know nothing.

        As to violent Mexican drug cartels, I would deal with their crimes against the US or our citizens harshly, but I sure as hell would not use it as an excuse to steal Mexican’s homes on Mexican land, or to kill their families just to “send a message”.

        Start thinking like a Christian, instead of a brainwashed neocon,.

      • E Harris says:


        Hamas puts rocket launching pads next to playgrounds and mosques. HOPING to increase collateral damage, in order to blame Israeli’s.

        They use pictures of dead children, that are sometimes not even taken in Palestine. It’s a media war. I’m not saying that there’s no real victims on the Palestinian side. I am saying that this victimhood idea is a cultivated IMAGE. So that Iran can continue to arm Hamas (as it has admitted to doing), and Hamas & Hezbollah can continue to fire rockets… DURING A TRUCE.

        It’s common sense. How do you stop perpetual bloodshed? You may have to get your hands a little bloody and BEAT UP THE BULLY. Which is, in this case, Islamist-sponsored and Islamist-encouraged Hamas. Period. Hamas (like most islamic terrorists) routinely use HUMAN shields, and then profess to be indignate when a few of their fellow human shields have bad things happen to them. This however, does not stop Hamas from continuing to launch rockets INTO ISRAELI CITIES during a TRUCE, when the Israeli military has decided NOT to act!!!! Duh. That’s all I can say. Duh.

        Your laxness on the issue is showing. You condemn Israel’s very existence as a nation-state. But then turn around and say that “there are no easy solutions.” ??? Then why are you so adamantly opposed to the Jewish nation-state?

      • Arrow says:

        E says: “You condemn Israel’s very existence as a nation-state. But then turn around and say that “there are no easy solutions.” ??? Then why are you so adamantly opposed to the Jewish nation-state?”

        You are not thinking about what I said, you are repeating knee-jerk responses based on years of one-sided, incomplete information. I konw…I once said exactly the same things you are saying, because I had one-sided incomplete sources of information.

        1. I did NOT condemn the existence of the state of Israel. I said it was unjustly founded; now it exists and we have to recognize that. MOST Palestinians say the same thing. You don’t believe that because you are ignorant of the real situation.

        2. Yes, I say that there are no easy solutions. I know that to you it’s simple…pick a side and murder everyone else. As I said, you need to start thinking like a Christian, not a godless neocon.

      • E Harris says:

        Arrow, I may have been too heated in that last discussion, assuming that I knew more than I did about your exact opinion.

        However, you made a bigger mistake than I. You assume that I just want to ‘pick a side’ and ‘murder anyone else’?

        Maybe we should call a ‘truce’, before one of us gets hurt. But that truce would only hold so long as BOTH sides are not actively firing rockets. Otherwise, it’s not a truce. It’s war. And self-defense is justified. Libertarianism (last I checked) included the ability and right to defend your life, liberty, and property.

      • Arrow says:

        E, you say: “Libertarianism (last I checked) included the ability and right to defend your life, liberty, and property.”

        Exactly my point. [disclaimer: I'm NOT justifying the rocket attacks of either the Palestinians or the Israelis.] You are ignoring the property rights (and right to life) of the Palestinians whose land was stolen and whose villages were destroyed and whose people were killed when their land was taken (and still is being taken).

        I’m not “anti-Israel”. I’m simply saying that the Palestinians have been mistreated (BIG time), and I would be against that even if it had been my own brother who mistreated them.

        Why is this so difficult to see?

      • Eric Heil says:

        What about the Palestinian Christians? Shouldn’t we be supporting them, over all else? They face discrimination from both sides.

      • Arrow says:

        What??? You mean that there are Palestinian Christians??? I thought they were all Arabs.

        [NOTE: this is sarcasm intended to outline the ignorance of the average Christian on this issue]

      • Arrow says:

        Isn’t it ironic that if an atheistic Israeli Jew took the home of a born-again Christian Palestinian, most Americans would cheer because the atheistic Jew is “one of God’s chosen people”?

      • E Harris says:

        You broke the truce, Arrow. ;)

        So how should I respond to this “attack” that came after a truce?

      • Arrow says:


        I sense that you understand that I am arguing ideas and have no personal animosity…and for that I thank you.

        I hope that you will think about what I have said, and look into it. Years ago my viewpoints on this matched yours almost exactly, and then I met some people from over there…on both “sides”. They challenged my thinking, and made me realize that I had been fed a diet of one-sided information (propaganda, almost), and I was forced to reconsider. I have no animosity toward the people on either side, except for those who are acting unjustly on both sides. My only desire for all of them is to see them live in peace…which IS possible, despite what bloodthirsty people of various stripes want us to think.

      • Arrow says:


        Please read this short account:

      • E Harris says:

        Ok, I will check it out. Probably won’t reply on this thread tho.

  6. Arrow says:

    The theology is good, but I question the application. Maybe a better phrasing for the question would be:

    “Is it ok to lie in order to start and conduct a godless war of aggression against someone who has not attacked you”.

    Would you defend a used car salesman who sold someone a car with sawdust in the transmission by appealing to the Rahab account?

Back to Top ↑