- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
16 Mar 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeNot really. I guess the intent, now that I think about it, is more along the lines of infantilization lol
The 'tiger' thing is rather creepy. Is that your intent?
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
16 Mar 18
Originally posted by @moonbusI think God’s attitude toward, and hatred of, sin didn’t change from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Only the way He addressed it changed, imo
Yes, well, that very realization, namely that the angry-vengeful God of the OT needed to lighten up and transform Himself into the loving-forgiving God of the NT, which occurred to you between breakfast and tea time, took some hundreds of years to establish itself in the Mediterranean collective consciousness, so consider yourself among the spiritual adepts ...[text shortened]... arnate bowling people over with miracle after miracle, in their faces, and still did not get it.
16 Mar 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Yes, what constitutes sin is the same in the OT and the NT: defiance of God's Will. I would say mankind comes to a different understanding of God in the NT.
I think God’s attitude toward, and hatred of, sin didn’t change from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Only the way He addressed it changed, imo
16 Mar 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI think it is interesting.
'Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, But those who deal faithfully are His delight.' (Proverbs 12:22)
It is my proposition that, socially speaking, the above biblical verse (and others like it) are offering poor advice, and that lying is necessary for the efficient running of society.
Now, I'm 'not' underplaying honesty and integrit ...[text shortened]... society not to grind to a halt. It makes us more efficient as a species and to get things done.
I do not think anyone lies if they actually have a lot of big problems going on and they just say "fine, thanks."
I think it is literally just the act of fulfilling a social interaction, and because few people actually expect an in-depth or comprehensive answer from such a question, it isn't really lying about anything.
I believe we've even had conversations before that were like...
"How is Jon doing?"
"Well, you know, he said he was fine and everything is good but I think he's just saying that so we don't worry."
16 Mar 18
I would also say this... The above Bible verse's attention was only to literally oppose the concept of people outright lying and misleading each other with a bad purpose.
But one surprising thing -- the Got Questions website, which is quite great and a really good resource, literally is just a big, long post about how even white lies are unacceptable.
This is kind of blowing my mind:
https://www.gotquestions.org/white-lies.html
It's a really good point.
Now, I am not really sure what to do.
16 Mar 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaWhen colleagues at work or acquaintances you bump into at the market ask "how are you?" they do not really expect a full and accurate resume of your condition and would be astounded or discomfited if you gave one. Is it a lie if you answer, more or less automatically, "fine" when you're anything but fine? Yes, according to the article to which you linked about "white lies." It is certainly harmless to say "fine" and it is socially almost rude to say almost anything which implies something other than "fine" or "ok". "I've got a hangover" or "I think I'm coming down with a cold" are acceptable, but "I'd rather not say" is already pretty off-putting even if true, and "I'm despondent because I suspect my wife is cheating on me" is way out of bounds and an affront to both the listener and the wife (even if she is cheating). Decorum requires some things to be kept private.
I would also say this... The above Bible verse's attention was only to literally oppose the concept of people outright lying and misleading each other with a bad purpose.
But one surprising thing -- the Got Questions website, which is quite great and a really good resource, literally is just a big, long post about how even [b]white lies are unacc ...[text shortened]... stions.org/white-lies.html
It's a really good point.
Now, I am not really sure what to do.[/b]
If it is a sin in the eyes of God to say "fine" when you're not, then it is a petty sin, not a mortal one. Not one of the ones to loose any sleep over.
Imagine a society in which everyone always said exactly and fully what was on their minds to everyone all the time, whether prompted to or not. A society in which truthfulness was the highest virtue, above even piety and justice. It would be unbearable.
If you are unsure what to do, then do something polite. That cannot be a sin in the eyes of a loving God.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
Originally posted by @moonbus'Imagine a society in which everyone always said exactly and fully what was on their minds to everyone all the time, whether prompted to or not. A society in which truthfulness was the highest virtue, above even piety and justice. It would be unbearable."
When colleagues at work or acquaintances you bump into at the market ask "how are you?" they do not really expect a full and accurate resume of your condition and would be astounded or discomfited if you gave one. Is it a lie if you answer, more or less automatically, "fine" when you're anything but fine? Yes, according to the article to which you linked ab ...[text shortened]... e unsure what to do, then do something polite. That cannot be a sin in the eyes of a loving God.
But would make a pretty good novel. (I might just write it).
Originally posted by @moonbusImagine a society in which everyone always said exactly and fully what was on their minds to everyone all the time, whether prompted to or not.
When colleagues at work or acquaintances you bump into at the market ask "how are you?" they do not really expect a full and accurate resume of your condition and would be astounded or discomfited if you gave one. Is it a lie if you answer, more or less automatically, "fine" when you're anything but fine? Yes, according to the article to which you linked ab ...[text shortened]... e unsure what to do, then do something polite. That cannot be a sin in the eyes of a loving God.
People don't have to lie. They don't have to divulge " fully what was on their minds to everyone all the time" either. This is a ridiculous false dichotomy that amounts to a nonsensical rationalization for lying.
A society in which truthfulness was the highest virtue, above even piety and justice. It would be unbearable.
Once again a false dichotomy. How exactly is "truthfulness" at odds with "justice"?
If you are unsure what to do, then do something polite.
Yeah, "polite". Now that's really important. One of the most "polite" people I've ever know is also one of the biggest liars I've ever known. It's not a complete coincidence.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
Originally posted by @thinkofonePerhaps you missed this earlier post from Moonbus? It was quite brilliant:
[b]Imagine a society in which everyone always said exactly and fully what was on their minds to everyone all the time, whether prompted to or not.
People don't have to lie. They don't have to divulge " fully what was on their minds to everyone all the time" either. This is a ridiculous false dichotomy that amounts to a nonsensical rationalization ...[text shortened]... 've ever know is also one of the biggest liars I've ever known. It's not a complete coincidence.[/b]
'From the standpoint of philosophy, with no particular religious dogma to promote, truth is an instrumental good, not an intrinsic good. Whereas, justice, for example is an intrinsic good.
From this it follows that:
a) if, in a given situation, telling the truth would very likely lead to clear and present injustice, then one ought not to tell the truth (e.g., one ought to be silent);
and b) if, in a given situation, telling a lie would very likely avoid a clear and present injustice, then one ought to lie.
It is easy to construct hypothetical situations based on real historical precedents to demonstrate the validity of the above observation.
Suppose: you live in some Nazi-occupied territory; you are sheltering a Jewish family in secret; the gestapo knocks on your door and asks a direct question, "Are you sheltering any Jews?" Cleary, refusing to answer would be suspicious and probably provoke a forced search of the premises, so conclusion a) above is not sufficient to avoid a clear and present danger of gross injustice. Therefore, the morally correct thing to do is b), namely to lie, "No, we are not sheltering any Jews."
This principle has been enshrined in present German law under the concept of Notluege ("emergency fib" ).
Is lying socially necessary, you ask. I would go much further; lying is, in some contexts, morally obligatory and a legal entitlement.'
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeThose type of contrived "hypothetical situations" hardly make cogent arguments.
Perhaps you missed this earlier post from Moonbus? It was quite brilliant:
'From the standpoint of philosophy, with no particular religious dogma to promote, truth is an instrumental good, not an intrinsic good. Whereas, justice, for example is an intrinsic good.
From this it follows that:
a) if, in a given situation, telling the truth ...[text shortened]... would go much further; lying is, in some contexts, morally obligatory and a legal entitlement.'
Somehow I doubt the gestapo went around asking people "Are you sheltering any Jews?" rather than just kicking down doors when they had reason for suspicion.
"real historical precedents" lol.
16 Mar 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneThere is a difference between honesty and openness, and this bears on Ghost’s thread topic. Did Jesus lie to his disciples about not going to Jerusalem and then going secretly, or was he merely not entirely open with them?
[b]Imagine a society in which everyone always said exactly and fully what was on their minds to everyone all the time, whether prompted to or not.
People don't have to lie. They don't have to divulge " fully what was on their minds to everyone all the time" either. This is a ridiculous false dichotomy that amounts to a nonsensical rationalization ...[text shortened]... 've ever know is also one of the biggest liars I've ever known. It's not a complete coincidence.[/b]
That politeness has nothing to do with truthfulness is obvious. Taken in the context in which I mentioned it, namely the exchange of common and casual pleasantries, it is entirely appropriate to be polite and say “I’m fine” even when one is vexed by worries which do not concern persons who ask “how are you?”
As for propounding a ridiculous false dichotomy, it was nothing of the sort. I was pointing out that if one raises truthfulness to an absolute, it leads to absurdity. If someone claims that God commands us to be truthful, one can interpret this to mean that the commandment is absolute only in the sense that it comes from an absolute authority, God, but not in the sense that it must be applied absolutely, to everything everyone says all the time, Even the commandment “thou shalt not kill” has legitimate exceptions.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
16 Mar 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneWere the parables from Jesus (while he walked the Earth) attesting to "real historical precedents?"
Those type of contrived "hypothetical situations" hardly make cogent arguments.
Somehow I doubt the gestapo went around asking people "Are you sheltering any Jews?" rather than just kicking down doors when they had reason for suspicion.
"real historical precedents" lol.
Are there no lessons to be learned in parables and thought provoking scenarios?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
16 Mar 18
Originally posted by @moonbus'Even the commandment “thou shalt not kill” has legitimate exceptions.'
There is a difference between honesty and openness, and this bears on Ghost’s thread topic. Did Jesus lie to his disciples about not going to Jerusalem and then going secretly, or was he merely not entirely open with them?
That politeness has nothing to do with truthfulness is obvious. Taken in the context in which I mentioned it, namely t ...[text shortened]... veryone says all the time, Even the commandment “thou shalt not kill” has legitimate exceptions.
Hey, you just pre-empted my next thread!
😠
16 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWell, the difficulty here is that there is a truth that everyone can recognize, and then, on the other hand, there are what I would call 'projected truths'. These the speaker doesn't really believe or accept as the truth, but merely calls the truth for various reasons, like social standing or acceptance. Sort of like there's normal people, and then there's politicians. So even if everyone was compelled to speak 'a truth', one could not be sure if another was speaking from their heart or from their mouth only. Savvy?
'Imagine a society in which everyone always said exactly and fully what was on their minds to everyone all the time, whether prompted to or not. A society in which truthfulness was the highest virtue, above even piety and justice. It would be unbearable."
But would make a pretty good novel. (I might just write it).
I don't know if the television show "The Orville" is broadcast in Britain, but it's a show rather like Star Trek. On one episode they encountered a society where everyone was rated by others. One's value to society was decided by everyone's personal opinion of you. Insult, or merely offend, too many people and you could find yourself in a descending whirlpool of public opinion, and your rights erode until once a certain negative number was reached, you were put to death. How many people in such a society even understand that one's personal behavior, or even what they think, become artificial in order to appease others, for fear of becoming ostracized and minimized? Sort of a 'fascism of the mind'.