Exodus 20:16

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
Bearing false witness:

Part of the problem is with the RCC Double-Speak.

For instance, concerning the Real Presence.

It looks like bread and wine.
It smells like bread and wine.
It tastes like bread and wine.

but the RCC says it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

It is not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Have I given a false witness or has the RCC?


HankD<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know, perhaps I did not frame my questions well in the opening post to this thread.

I seems that you do not understand what I wish to discuss. Could you address the question directly as I have posed it?

Do we violate the spirit or the letter of this commandment when we:

Repeat rumor?
Quote out of context?
Make rash judgement?
Flatter excessively?
Boast?

If we are guilty of bearing false witness, do we have a duty of reparation?

Thanks
Ron

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
Dear T2U,

I understand completely what you mean and I believe what I said bears directly upon what you have asked.

For Instance:
I have been accused of being a false witness when I once said that Roman Catholics worshipped idols, after which I posted URLs with some Catholics bowing before statues in the position of prayer, while others were kneeling and weeping and touching the statues.

I say it is worship and to me it is a form of idolatry.

When I call it what my eyes see and what my heart and mind says it is, I am accused of false witness because the RCC plays this double-speak word game and calls it hyper-dulia which is something less than the worship (latria) due only to God.

Another case: When you worship the eucharistic host you are committing idolatry.

Now is that sentence a false witness on my part or not?

Who is the actual false witness? Me or the worshipper? Or the one accusing of false witness?

There is one who knows for sure and He is the judge of all of us.

The point is this : if we don't conform exactly to the double-speak (which is in my mind a form of false witness) then we are (or at least I have been) accused directly or by innuendo of being the false witness.

HankD<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hank, I think that we may be talking about different things.

&gt;&gt;I have been accused of being a false witness when I once said that Roman Catholics worshipped idols...

I say it is worship and to me it is a form of idolatry.&lt;&lt;

Let's talk about what you seem to be saying first. In order to draw a conclusion that someone worships something, we need knowledge of inner intent. Our knowldge of the inner intent of another person is difficult to know, wven with pictures. You would agree that a truer statement would be something along the lines of, "It looks to me like... ". I have little doubt that you would agree with me on that point.

But that is not the sort of "false witness" that I am speaking of in this thread. I am talking about making statements based on nothing more than hearsay, deliberate parphasing, or removing from context so as to change the meaning.

If one heard somewhere that "Joe Smith did such and such", absent any real knowledge, is one free to repeat it as truth? Is merely hearing something a defense against bearing false witness?

Think of it this way. If you are not a witness to a fact situation, what sort of testimony can you offer? Either none, a qualified testimony (ie. I don't know for sure, but I heard...), or a false testimony.

Lacking knowledge, an unqualified witness can only be false witness.

This takes on a greater seriousness when the false witness is scandalous. When talking about the faith and beliefs of others, it is very easy to slip into the area of scandal. By that I maean it is easy to harm the reputation of others.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

I see. You think that our judgements of Catholic dogma fall under "bearing false witness."

I have certainly heard many unqualified individuals comment on what Catholics believe, and think if all they know is what someone else told them they ought to clam up.

But one offering his informed opinion about this or that dogma is not bearing false witness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaron, read though the posts written on this thread by me, a please let me know where I have made the above claim?

That is not what I have said at all. I have attempted to be very direct and very clear as to what I am addressing here.

Please, show me from my words.

Ron

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:


Nevertheless, I felt my point needed to be made since I believe you have unwittingly been guilty of claiming a "false witness" when none was knowingly being made.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not following you on this. Could you be more specific?

Ron

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
Dear Ron,

Not realizing that one has made a "false witness" causes one not to be a false witness but mistaken.


HankD<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, with qualifications.

Let's talk about this outside of a matter of dogma, since that was my intent when I started this discussion.

Do you agree that one has an obligation to learn to the best of one's ability the truth of a matter before repeating it to another?

If one does not attempt to ascertain the truth of the matter before bearing witness, is such a lack of knowledge a valid defense?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:


I didn't get it from your words. I got it from what others have posted. That explains why folks at the beginning were reticent to answer you directly. Perhaps they've been burned before?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you took a characterization of my words by others over your own reading of them?

And four pages into this thread, as I have maintained a consistent attitude and position on "false witness" as I presented it in the originating post, you still are suspect of my intent?

And you have no personal experience to judge your assumption that others have been "burned before"?

Would a respect for truth require avoiding rash judgement of others?