quote:

I don't know if it's scriptural as much as courtesy following a death. After all, even the nastiest people probably have family and friends (a mom?) who are sad that they have died. It does no good in the days after a death to point out how "bad" a person was to people that may be grieving. And frankly, it makes the person criticizing look pretty low and lacking compassion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellaluna

I don't know if it's scriptural as much as courtesy following a death. After all, even the nastiest people probably have family and friends (a mom?) who are sad that they have died. It does no good in the days after a death to point out how "bad" a person was to people that may be grieving. And frankly, it makes the person criticizing look pretty low and lacking compassion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God

Does the Bible say that it is wrong to speak ill of the dead?

quote:


Is it worse to say something negative about a person after they are gone, or while they are still alive? I would think when they were dead it wouldn't matter anymore.

quote:


When they are dead, their fate is settled, one way or the other, so I'd think prayers at that point are pretty futile.

quote:


If not the Bible, from where does the idea that we mustn't speak ill of the dead come?

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellaluna

I don't know if it's scriptural as much as courtesy following a death. After all, even the nastiest people probably have family and friends (a mom?) who are sad that they have died. It does no good in the days after a death to point out how "bad" a person was to people that may be grieving. And frankly, it makes the person criticizing look pretty low and lacking compassion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon

Wrong as in sin? Depends on motive IMO. Hand-rubbing glee or callous comments like "good riddance" probably are.

I agree with the others that it's a matter of decency. Good manners can't be explained with biblical reasons nor do I believe they have to be. But just as some people have so little concept of good manners and decency that they see no reason to respect their elders, or hold doors or refrain from discussing bodily functions in detail at a dinner party so others see no reason for forbearing to point out the sins and flaws of the recently deceased. It's pathetic and tells far more about the character of the speaker than it does about the dead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirWintery

Found it. The phrase comes to us from the Romans, BUT I'll let Matthew Henry's commentary on 2 Samuel 1 speak about it...

This elegy proves David to have been,

1. A man of an excellent spirit, in four things:—

(1.) He was very generous to Saul, his sworn enemy. Saul was his father-in-law, his sovereign, and the anointed of the Lord; and therefore, though he had done him a great deal of wrong, David does not wreak his revenge upon his memory when he is in his grave; but like a good man, and a man of honour, [1.] He conceals his faults; and, though there was no preventing their appearance in his history, yet they should not appear in this elegy. Charity teaches us to make the best we can of every body and to say nothing of those of whom we can say no good, especially when they are gone. De mortuis nil nisi bonum—Say nothing but good concerning the dead. We ought to deny ourselves the satisfaction of making personal reflections upon those who have been injurious to us, much more drawing their character thence, as if every man must of necessity be a bad man that has done ill by us. Let the corrupt part of the memory be buried with the corrupt part of the man—earth to earth, ashes to ashes; let the blemish be hidden and a veil drawn over the deformity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

All we have to do is change "speaking ill(the truth) of the dead" to a host of many other actions and you'd end up with people speaking of legalism regarding some folks saying it's wrong to do so...

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawr.ben

No. Some of us follow the "if you can't say something nice . . . " rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawr.ben

No. Some of us follow the "if you can't say something nice . . . " rule.

Fine and dandy, but forcing your rules on others is generally considered legalism around here...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManimalX

I think there is a pretty distinct line between speaking the truth and gloating over the eternal damnation of a lost soul, as CoeurdeLeon mentioned.

a_sparrow also wisely hit on the key issue: it isn't about the dead, but the survivors. As stellaluna pointed out, a reaction of "Well, that sinner is burning in hell now. They sure got what they deserved", is severely uncompassionate. I would add to that description by calling it grotesquely ungraceful and extremely ineffective. There are a few in particular on these forums who are really bad at doing this.

Is a nearly contemptible mockery of an unsaved soul going to Hell really going to be beneficial to your witness for Christ? When the grieving family looks to the people who claim to be ambassadors for the God who isn't only Just, but is Love, Mercy, Grace, and Life... and all they find is condemnation and doom? Does that help them know the God who mourns the death of the wicked and who sacrificed His only Son to make a way for any who would accept the gift?

There is a way to speak the truth in love, and there is a way to speak the truth in hate, and it is sad that some can't tell the difference. It is not at all becoming of a Christ follower to bellow about "the truth" at the expense of "the way and the life" and in the absence of "love". I think someone famous once aptly pointed out that a message without love is nothing more than a noisy gong and clanging symbol....

Of COURSE the person who died without knowing Christ is destined for eternal damnation, but there is a graceful and loving way to present that truth. It is called "tact", and is a hard skill to master. I suggest certain people who have a problem with tact do some in-depth research into the efforts of Christian missionaries in Japan, China, and other Asian nations that practice a form of ancestor worship. You will find that missionaries who towed the line "All of your ancestors whom you love so much died without a savior and can't hear your prayers because they are burning forever in Hell... now, who wants to know Jesus? Tea anybody?" were severely unsuccessful and did more to harbor resentment towards Christ than attraction. However, the good folks who were able to convey the exact same truth but in a compassionate and mournful way saw many more true conversions.

I am all for a little more "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"..... when the time and place are appropriate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

I believe a lot of the issue here is people reflect on themselves when people die and realize they offered the people who have passed along nothing in the way a hand in a possible way with God... I image a lot of folks who supported and cheered on a Mr. Jackson while he blazed a path to wrath are now thinking of God, yet prior had no time for God regarding Mr Jackson, since their focus was on the man in question...