No, the Ninth Commandment does not state: “Thou shalt not lie.” It says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
I’ve read on-line posts which claim the Ninth Commandment, in effect, tells us not to lie. But that’s simply not true. Consider the following from Source A*:
Let’s say you were living in Nazi Germany and hiding Jews fleeing the holocaust. Would you break the intention of the commandment by lying to an SS Officer and saying that you’ve not seen any Jews, even though they are hiding in your closet? In such cases, the greater interest is justice for the innocent.
That author would have done better to replace that last sentence with this:
Since the Ninth Commandment deals with bearing “false witness against,” you wouldn’t be breaking that law since you didn’t say anything against your neighbors – the Jews you are hiding. In fact, giving them away would violate this one – “Thou shalt not kill.” If you lied, saying you hadn’t seen any Jews, you could claim to be “bearing false witness in favor of [my] neighbor.” No law against that! [NOTE: I will deal, later, with what if the Commandment actually said, “Thou shalt not lie.”]
That author, by saying “In such cases, the greater interest is justice…” is guilty of being dodgy by not answering (as I did) in terms of the Commandment itself. This same author shares, in that same posting, this anecdote:
A pastor walking through his neighborhood came up on a group of boys trying to out-lie each other. The kindly parson, overhearing a few whoppers, asked the boys what they were doing. They explained they’d found a puppy and decided the one who told the biggest lie would get to take it home. As you can imagine, this disturbed this man of the cloth. He looked each boy straight in the eye and told them all they should be ashamed of themselves, that when he was their age, he never told lies. The boys all bowed their heads and shrugged their shoulders in shame and their leader, picking up the puppy, handed it to the minister and said, “You win, you get to keep the dog.”
Being the mischievous soul I am, I would have been tempted to hack into his website and alter that last sentence to read:
The boys all gasped in amazement and their leader, picking up the puppy, handed it to the minister and said, “You win, you get to keep the dog, for you just now told a whopper that out-lied any of us.”
I know, I know…the author didn’t intend that meaning, but it sure jumped out at me…and struck me as being hilarious.
What about where he wrote (above): “As you can imagine, this disturbed this man of the cloth.” Why should he be disturbed at all? Since the boys were lying to each other without any intention of harming anyone – and each knew the other was lying (in which case, whatever was said wasn’t a lie in the sense of being an attempt to deceive anyone) – the preacher was just being a dick by trying to shame these boys.
Look at the wording of the Ninth
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
I’ve already dealt with the “against” part – what about the “neighbor” part? I looked up the word “neighbor” from Source B*, which says:
QUOTE:
1. One who lives near or next to another.
2. A person, place, or thing adjacent to or located near another.
3. A fellow human.
4. Used as a form of familiar address [like “Howdy, neighbor!”]
[Also included are the following:]
· To lie close to or border directly on.
· To live or be situated close by.
· Situated or living near another: a neighbor state.
Word History: even though one can now have many neighbors whom one does not know, a situation that would have been highly unlikely in earlier times. The extension of this word to mean "fellow" is probably attributable to the Christian concern with the treatment of one's fellow humans, as in the passage in Matthew 19:19 that urges love of one's neighbor.
:UNQUOTE.
I duly note, here and now, that Matthew 19:19 was written after the Ten Commandments had been given to Moses. So I think we can disregard this from the definitions of “neighbor” listed above: “a fellow human.”
However, if we do that, then apparently the Commandment could be rewritten to say:
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor but it’s perfectly okay to do so against those who are not thy neighbors.” In other words, it’s only sinful to bear false witness against “folks like us.” We might not feel it right to embrace a Commandment that exclude others but…that’s what the words mean.
As for “bearing false witness against (someone),” what about saying something that isn’t true but which also isn’t against anyone? For instance, if some fool got up in the public square and insisted (even though he knew better) that the world was flat, he would be guilty of intentionally lying. But he wouldn’t be guilty of saying anything “against” anybody. Or would he? If someone in the audience were to believe this lie and act on it in such a way as to cause him loss or harm, then the lie would have had the effect of being against someone (that is, to his detriment).
But…maybe such a lie would be better prohibited by the “Thou shalt not steal” commandment. For by telling such a lie, the fool attempts to “steal” from the gullible listener something we all have a right to possess – an accurate description of physical reality.
The Four Agreements
Don Miguel Ruiz wrote a best-seller called The Four Agreements, which are basically four rules of conduct necessary for a virtuous life:
1. Be impeccable with your word
2. Don’t take anything personally
3. Don’t make assumptions [Side Note: This would have given Euclid fits, since he built a vast body of work based on making “assumptions” – aka axioms.]
4. Always do your best
Right off the bat, I liked the fact that God is not mentioned anywhere among these four rules. By saying that, I’m not weighing in on whether God actually exists or not. I’m merely saying, living a virtuous life doesn’t necessarily have to involve an external, higher being.
But I digress. Focus on #1: “Be impeccable with your word.” According to Source B*, impeccable means “without flaw or error; faultless.” But does that mean such words must be devoid of lies?
The Buddha, whose speech must surely be regarded as “impeccable,” never lied or so it is claimed. However, he is also praised for having used “expedient means” in order to teach his disciples – “means” which sometimes took the form of telling a lie. The idea, I suppose, is that lies told to help someone attain enlightenment aren’t really lies. But…I don’t buy that for a moment, as I explained in my essay, “Why did the Buddha lie to us?” at:
I can only speak for myself, but I regard “impeccable” speech as being completely free of lies.
Back to the beginning
Toward the beginning of this essay, I wrote:
[NOTE: I will deal, later, with what if the Commandment actually said, “Thou shalt not lie.”]
Let’s reconsider what Source A* said above:
Let’s say you were living in Nazi Germany and hiding Jews fleeing the holocaust. Would you break the intention of the commandment by lying to an SS Officer and saying that you’ve not seen any Jews, even though they are hiding in your closet?
If the Ninth actually stated “Thou shalt not lie,” the only proper response would be to tell that SS Officer, “I’m not going to tell you.” Of course that would prompt a search of your premises which would quickly reveal the Jews hiding in your closet. But do you really think that officer would have accepted your answer and walked away, if you had told him you’d not seen any Jews?
Maybe, maybe not. Some people calculate the odds on answers to questions like this before speaking. If they thought it highly probable the SS man would believe them, they might risk lying. If they thought otherwise, they might say, “I’m not going to tell you” knowing full well they themselves would be punished after the inevitable search turned up closeted Jews.
Under those circumstances – an SS man in your face – would it be worth risking your life to keep the “Thou shalt not lie” commandment? Maybe the better question would be: Would it be worth your soul not to keep that commandment?
Side note: I’m going to purposely ignore the possibility of asking God/Jesus for forgiveness (and it being granted) for violating a commandment. For when one asks forgiveness, one is saying they won’t ever commit the sin again. But we know full well, that if our hero survived the first SS officer asking this question, he would lie again if confronted by a second SS officer. How many times can one break a commandment and ask for forgiveness before it becomes obvious that the breaker will always continue to break?
The uncomfortable but honest position must be: If the Commandment said “Thou shalt not lie,” then that is what is meant. Even at the cost of your own life? Yes, but I hasten to add: “Too many people cling to life (or at least their idea of life) when they really should let go.” That might be easy to say, but (you might object) how many people could be brave enough to stand up to an SS officer like that?
The answer to that question is, “Not as many would have had to be that brave if more people had been more honest way before Nazism had a chance to become the state religion of Germany.” A lot of little lies allowed a great evil to take root. The lesson? Maybe it would be better to get out of the habit of telling (and accepting) so many little lies that have a way of getting out of hand.
Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)
“Try it out for yourselves in your personal lives, to live according to a ‘Thou shalt not lie’ commandment.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
* Source B =http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neighbor
No comments:
Post a Comment