15 Mar 10
Originally posted by 667joesorry Jo Jo i have two croissants awaiting me in the oven, so if you are quite finished telling me about certain events you have not even witnessed yet are able to describe in such glowing terms as 'they never happened', i think ill will give my attention to my croissants if you dont mind.
You were not there either. If you believe in such nonsense, I am sorry for you. Perhaps some medication will help with your delusions.
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDear Karaoke, enjoy your snack. Don't forget to say grace to your imaginary friend!
sorry Jo Jo i have two croissants awaiting me in the oven, so if you are quite finished telling me about certain events you have not even witnessed yet are able to describe in such glowing terms as 'they never happened', i think ill will give my attention to my croissants if you dont mind.
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou've always got the best excuses. Highly entertaining. Enlightening,even. But only to a point.
sorry Jo Jo i have two croissants awaiting me in the oven, so if you are quite finished telling me about certain events you have not even witnessed yet are able to describe in such glowing terms as 'they never happened', i think ill will give my attention to my croissants if you dont mind.
15 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelthe best excuses for what, Jo Jo telling me in certain terms about events that he can neither prove nor disprove, i mean look at his over whelming evidence, 'it never happened', 'imaginary friend', well that's real compelling dont you think, the croissants win every time.
You've always got the best excuses. Highly entertaining. Enlightening,even. But only to a point.
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have noticed an improvement in the quality of your posts too lately. Keep it up champ!
the best excuses for what, Jo Jo telling me in certain terms about events that he can neither prove nor disprove, i mean look at his over whelming evidence, 'it never happened', 'imaginary friend', well that's real compelling dont you think, the croissants win every time.
15 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"the best excuses for what, Jo Jo telling me in certain terms about events that he can neither prove nor disprove, i mean look at his over whelming evidence, 'it never happened', 'imaginary friend', well that's real compelling dont you think, the croissants win every time"
the best excuses for what, Jo Jo telling me in certain terms about events that he can neither prove nor disprove, i mean look at his over whelming evidence, 'it never happened', 'imaginary friend', well that's real compelling dont you think, the croissants win every time.
For any imaginable croissant with any imaginable topping??? 😕
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by SwissGambitForgive my c/p job on my earlier post, but it addresses this same issue and I asked myself for permission, which I grudgingly gave after a few concessions were made on my part...
OK, much clearer. Thanks for that. Let's examine the next verse.Gen 3:6 [NIV] When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
There is nothing in here about abandoning ...[text shortened]... ourselves sometimes instead of just accepting things on someone's [even God's] say-so.[/b]
Which is not to say that there exists no further light on the topic: as rc pointed out herein, there are other passages which illuminate and amplify this already-clear portion of Scripture.
Adam and the woman were faced with but a few choices while in the Garden... only one of which held a weighted value. Morals were not an issue, nor was either good or evil in any capacity. If they wanted to continue in life, they could eat the fruit of any tree in the Garden, exception already noted. If they were willing to die spiritual and eventually physically, taste of the exception.
You continue to revisit whether or not Adam and the woman could have known truly the implication(s) of their action, but the account is clear. The straightforward rendering of the events as well as basic common sense tell us they both wanted to live--- at least, for an unspecified amount of time. After all, they continued to eat of all the approved trees, right? They continued walking with God in the cool of the evening, communing with Him. They continued enjoying the life He had prepared for them.
Eventually, the woman ceased paying attention and the inevitable happened: she became bored. Her separation from her husband intensified her vulnerability to deception. Once committed, her misery demanded bringing the only other person possible into the fray. Adam's conscious decision was not exteriorly derived: he convinced himself he'd rather have the woman than stay with God.
Your contention that they could not have possibly known the entire ramifications of their action somehow mitigates their culpability simply creates an unnecessary obstacle to clarity--- for the purpose of abating our own responsibility, were such a thing possible. But it did not and it is not.
Self-preservation is a mighty, mighty force. Consider its impact in your own life as you continue to wrestle with this one area (spirituality) that your intellect perceives as a threat to your otherwise firm grasp of life's issues. Certainly the two in the Garden were every bit as concerned with their self-preservation as any of us today. We know they perpetuated their existence for an extended period of time by eating, sleeping and any other requirement life demanded. Therefore, we can assume they wanted to live.
Without the experience of death, you argue, they had no scale. Well, neither do you. You have no idea what happens after life even though you have seen people or animals die... and this helps inform your fight for life, despite the lack of knowledge. Surely, for Adam and the woman, this could not have been all that different.
15 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Agergnever mind those croissants, delightful as they were and not imaginary either, i have earlier in the thread attempted to answer your very hard question as to why lying is ALWAYS both practically and morally wrong, in that it is essentially damaging. I even provided a list of scenarios which illustrated the point and have as yet received no contradictory evidence to the effect that lying is warranted under any circumstances bringing us to conclude that the original premise is sound, lying is indeed ALWAYS both in practical terms and in moral terms unacceptable.
"the best excuses for what, Jo Jo telling me in certain terms about events that he can neither prove nor disprove, i mean look at his over whelming evidence, 'it never happened', 'imaginary friend', well that's real compelling dont you think, [b]the croissants win every time"
For any imaginable croissant with any imaginable topping??? 😕[/b]
15 Mar 10
Additionally, the woman's approach to the fruit was decidedly not as innocent-sounding as it is superficially rendered in the English translations. Certainly more was going on underneath the surface than mere attraction...
"For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world."
The transliterated Hebrew has the woman yearning and coveting the fruit, not for its acknowledged beauty, but for its supposed ability to make her like Him.
15 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieacknowledged (was trying to decipher my garbled 9.00 am maths lecture notes and this last response was just procrastination)...sorry about that 🙂
never mind those croissants, delightful as they were and not imaginary either, i have earlier in the thread attempted to answer your very hard question as to why lying is ALWAYS both practically and morally wrong, in that it is essentially damaging. I even provided a list of scenarios which illustrated the point and have as yet received no contradic ...[text shortened]... remise is sound, lying is indeed ALWAYS both in practical terms and in moral terms unacceptable.
You wrote earlier
Actually Agerg, i do believe it and i have no intentions of pandering to your ego, i am not a fox trying to get the crow to sing and let go of the tasty morsel. The questions were quite hard, no doubt, especially after a glass of wine and a long day.
Why is lying always bad?
It seems to me that there are situations where one may withhold information, if it is deemed in the best interests to do so, or if the receiving part has no right to that information. This is clearly not lying as no deception has occurred.
Is it always bad? it seems to me that it is always essentially damaging. From a Christians perspective, it damages one relationship with God, but you are an atheist, so i shall spare you this, however consider these,
1.falsehood breeds distrust between marriage mates and among family members.
2.unfounded gossip can damage a person’s reputation.
3.cheating by employees raises operating costs and results in more expensive products.
4.false claims on tax returns rob governments of needed revenues to provide public services.
5.fabrications by researchers ruin promising careers and tarnish the reputation of respected institutions.
6.dishonest get-rich-quick schemes divest gullible investors of their life savings or worse
in essence, i find it very difficult, nay impossible to advocate a scenario where lying is beneficial and thus must conclude that it is always damaging and detrimental.
if we consider your list, 2)-6) are examples where lying is used to exploit others (at their cost) for personal gain since
2) exploiting the gossipees to curry favour with those who would hear such gossip
3),4) obvious
5) exploiting such institutions to serve researchers own ends maybe to win misplaced respect/ settle scores/ other...
6) obvious
I'd argue that though this is indeed a list that showcases some of the cases where lying is bad you may have left out some more virtuous cases; where lying to exploit is not the ends. Such as telling a 4 year old child his/her garbled crayon scrawlings are "great work!!!" or misdirecting a criminal to the location of police trap (can be regarded as exploitation but it serves to prevent further, longer reaching exploitation on behalf of the criminal), or magicians lying about what they haven't got up their sleeves to entertain their audiences or... (note these go further than merely *withholding information)
Finally (1) is a general claim that falsehood breeds mistrust. The hidden implication I'm getting from this is that though the statement looks to catch-all, it actually relies only upon particularly hurtful lies (such as I'm going to the cinema with some mates being placeholder speak for I'm going to have sex with your best friend without you knowing, etc... as opposed to "no I haven't got a wonderful surprise for you this upcoming anniversary, etc..." )
You will certainly find it difficult to find a situation where lies can be good if you take it to be a brute fact that lies are bad and search only for the cases that vindicate your argument 🙂
15 Mar 10
5 edits
telling your four year old daughter that her picture is great, may indeed not be lying. Have you visited any degree shows at art schools lately, my goodness you could hardly tell the difference, in fact students may be encouraged to give up their preconceptions and adopt a child like disposition. Indeed there is usually something about a child composition that one can commend without having to nefariously resort to the lie. the others of course may be subject to the same treatment, one for example may be part of a ruse, without needing to resort to the lie and an illusion is certainly not to be construed as a lie, all in all my friend, quite desperate attempts to substantiate the claim that lying may be beneficial. Get a cappuccino and two croissants and everything shall become clear 🙂
Of course i am going to advocate that lying is always damaging and utilise scenarios that vindicate my case, what would you have me do, capitulate and be absorbed into the dark side of the force? Maths is groovy, i love fractals.
15 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobietelling your four year old daughter that her picture is great, may indeed not be lying. Have you visited any degree shows at art schools lately, my goodness you could hardly tell the difference, in fact students may be encouraged to give up their preconceptions and adopt a child like disposition. Indeed there is usually something about a child composition that one can commend without having to nefariously resort to the lie.
telling your four year old daughter that her picture is great, may indeed not be lying. Have you visited any degree shows at art schools lately, my goodness you could hardly tell the difference, in fact students may be encouraged to give up their preconceptions and adopt a child like disposition. Indeed there is usually something about a child comp ...[text shortened]... , capitulate and be absorbed into the dark side of the force? Maths is groovy, i love fractals.
Let me strengthen that example somewhat...I hate (despise) "modern art" (back in 2004 I did a Graphic desing course (why??????) and pretty much my tutors will testify to this as well as the rebellious comments I left in gallery guest-books), I find youngsters scrawlings to be unpleasant and unsightly... My interest in "art" is in most cases limited to clear technical skill (I find the "artistic" aesthetics that appeals to me is found usually in quality draftsmanship and planned complexity...very rarely does swirly colours do anything for me).
There, as far as I can recall, has never been any time where a youngster has asked for my opinion on their work that I've ever delivered a response that wasn't a lie...The reason I lie is because at such a young age the only ends served is to keep them cheerful, where they run off to show someone else and then completely forget this lie (which cost them nothing) later on. As they mature then I scale up my level of accurate critique of their work.
As for the other example you looked at...yes you *can* use a ruse without lying I suppose; but it really is more pragmatic to say you have nothing up you sleeve, "demonstrate"(?) you have nothing up your sleeve; and then bowl them over with your sublimely magnificent skills in misdirection and magic...leaving the audience thoroughly entertained and eager to figure out your secrets as they walk away planning to recant this awesome spectacle to their friends...I'm sure I could come up with a longer list of examples.
As for your second to last point (not the maths one...I missed my chance to study fractals this year)...I expect nothing less than for you to defend your argument if it is indeed defensible 🙂; but in the same breath I don't think you lose a great deal by considering the possibility that perhaps not all lies are bad; or if this is untenable then demonstrate how there can be no exceptions (without unjustified assumptions).