It doesn't matter. The point is even if they had lied, what matters is the intention because God sees our heart and judges according to it. For example if a man comes to kill your friend you actually have a duty to lie to him and save your friend (supposing fighting is not an option).
The commandments are general rules of behavior but they are not absolute because there are always exceptions. Judging how to apply them correctly requires wisdom and spiritual knowledge. As a general rule we're commanded to love our enemy and to turn the other cheek but that's not always appropriate. Why? Because that may lead to the enemy destroying our loved ones that we have a duty to protect. And yet idiot protestants don't seem able to grasp this line of reasoning somehow but always speak in absolutes. It's like their minds are broken and they can't apply nuance and discernment.
if a man comes to kill your friend you actually have a duty to lie to him and save your friend (supposing fighting is not an option).
Many have weighed in differently on the issue, which is why I gave the note. Perhaps you have a magisterial citation about my duty to tell lies as if one man can compel another man's testimony. I appeal to Is. 54:16-17 that no entrapment to lie can succeed:
Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
Further, no command can contradict another, so if you are faced with an apparent contradiction it is your own failure of discernment, Matt. 22:39-40:
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
You and I denounce Origen, and yet the introduction into Christianity of the thought that Christians have a "right of reserve" to not tell the whole truth is Origenism.
Further, no command can contradict another, so if you are faced with an apparent contradiction it is your own failure of discernment
That's false. I can easily refute you by saying you should defend your family (or country) with lethal force if necessary. In this case the command not to kill is contradicted by the command to love and serve your family. Choosing not to kill in this instance could actually be sinful.
You and I denounce Origen, and yet the introduction into Christianity of the thought that Christians have a "right of reserve" to not tell the whole truth is Origenism.
Not at all. You hold the Augustinian position which is the basis for the western Church. But the Eastern fathers agree concealment of truth and even deception is permissible in certain situations (pastoral flexibility) - precisely what Athanasius did in your anecdote.
In this case the command not to kill is contradicted by the command to love and serve your family.
The command is not to murder (though it's often translated kill, but this is clarified by the context of executions). The contradiction is not in the intent but in falsely resolving the ambiguity in English. Killing in self-defense is specifically separated from murder in the case example of a night break-in (Ex. 22:2). That separation is not a contradiction but a different case that has a different law; canons of construction allow the general case to be stated in one place and the uncovered specific cases in another place. Reading and resolving the whole Torah is very enlightening about this detail of noncontradiction!
So you reject Augustine, who I understand counts as Orthodox, and affirm a doctrine I've traced only to Origen. I agree there is a time not to tell the whole truth if deception isn't involved, but that time expires when one is asked to testify the whole truth. I don't agree there is ever a time to deceive or mislead and I asked you indirectly who says so. On OrthodoxWiki the only relevant topic I get is prelest. It's an understandable intramural debate that has no polemic in it, so I appreciate your taking the time to engage it.
The command is not to murder (though it's often translated kill, but this is clarified by the context of executions). The contradiction is not in the intent but in falsely resolving the ambiguity in English. Killing in self-defense is specifically separated from murder in the case example of a night break-in (Ex. 22:2).
Fair enough, I agree about the distinction between killing and murder (unjustified killing). But it's not just in self-defense, because God commands Israel to attack and slaughter other nations too, so aggression is also justified.
I can give other examples where commands can contradict one another and where a person has to discern what the righteous action is.
So you reject Augustine, who I understand counts as Orthodox
Individual saints and Church fathers aren't infallible. St. Augustine held a host of problematic beliefs like filioque, inherent guilt, infants going to hell, predestination, abstracted essential Trinitarian model, lack of essence/energies distinction, emphasized institutionalization which led to papalism. He worked in Latin and didn't have access to the Greek fathers which led him to his errors. The Orthodox Church has canonized him but doesn't consider him an authoritative father and he's not part of the dogmatic consensus.
and affirm a doctrine I've traced only to Origen.
No, the position of pastoral flexibility and economic consideration is what St. John Chrysostom and other Eastern fathers held.
I agree there is a time not to tell the whole truth if deception isn't involved, but that time expires when one is asked to testify the whole truth. I don't agree there is ever a time to deceive or mislead and I asked you indirectly who says so.
Sure. Here's Chrysostom:
“For as physicians, though they know many remedies, yet do not employ them all indiscriminately, but according to the condition of the patient, sometimes even deceiving him for his benefit, so must we also act.”
On the Priesthood, Book I
“It is not the same thing to speak falsely with intent to harm, and to do so to save another from danger.”
Homilies on Genesis (Homily 44)
Basil:
“The truth is not to be told at all times, nor to all persons, nor in all circumstances.”
Letter 8 (to Caesaria)
St. Gregory of Nazianzus:
“It is necessary sometimes to deceive in order to benefit, as physicians do with their patients.”
Oration 40 (On Holy Baptism), §45
St. Ambrose:
“What of deception in war? Is it blameworthy when it brings about victory without bloodshed?”
De Officiis Ministrorum, Book I, ch. 30
So in this case Origen is correct since he goes along with the consensus. Remember that just because someone was condemned, it doesn't mean everything he teaches is wrong and vice-versa - someone being canonized doesn't make him infallible. Origenism refers to his condemned heretical teachings and not to everything he ever wrote.
On OrthodoxWiki the only relevant topic I get is prelest.
I don't care about what OrthodoxWiki says as if it's some authoritative source. This has nothing to do with prelest.
It doesn't matter. The point is even if they had lied, what matters is the intention because God sees our heart and judges according to it. For example if a man comes to kill your friend you actually have a duty to lie to him and save your friend (supposing fighting is not an option).
The commandments are general rules of behavior but they are not absolute because there are always exceptions. Judging how to apply them correctly requires wisdom and spiritual knowledge. As a general rule we're commanded to love our enemy and to turn the other cheek but that's not always appropriate. Why? Because that may lead to the enemy destroying our loved ones that we have a duty to protect. And yet idiot protestants don't seem able to grasp this line of reasoning somehow but always speak in absolutes. It's like their minds are broken and they can't apply nuance and discernment.
Many have weighed in differently on the issue, which is why I gave the note. Perhaps you have a magisterial citation about my duty to tell lies as if one man can compel another man's testimony. I appeal to Is. 54:16-17 that no entrapment to lie can succeed:
Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
Further, no command can contradict another, so if you are faced with an apparent contradiction it is your own failure of discernment, Matt. 22:39-40:
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
You and I denounce Origen, and yet the introduction into Christianity of the thought that Christians have a "right of reserve" to not tell the whole truth is Origenism.
That's false. I can easily refute you by saying you should defend your family (or country) with lethal force if necessary. In this case the command not to kill is contradicted by the command to love and serve your family. Choosing not to kill in this instance could actually be sinful.
Not at all. You hold the Augustinian position which is the basis for the western Church. But the Eastern fathers agree concealment of truth and even deception is permissible in certain situations (pastoral flexibility) - precisely what Athanasius did in your anecdote.
The command is not to murder (though it's often translated kill, but this is clarified by the context of executions). The contradiction is not in the intent but in falsely resolving the ambiguity in English. Killing in self-defense is specifically separated from murder in the case example of a night break-in (Ex. 22:2). That separation is not a contradiction but a different case that has a different law; canons of construction allow the general case to be stated in one place and the uncovered specific cases in another place. Reading and resolving the whole Torah is very enlightening about this detail of noncontradiction!
So you reject Augustine, who I understand counts as Orthodox, and affirm a doctrine I've traced only to Origen. I agree there is a time not to tell the whole truth if deception isn't involved, but that time expires when one is asked to testify the whole truth. I don't agree there is ever a time to deceive or mislead and I asked you indirectly who says so. On OrthodoxWiki the only relevant topic I get is prelest. It's an understandable intramural debate that has no polemic in it, so I appreciate your taking the time to engage it.
Fair enough, I agree about the distinction between killing and murder (unjustified killing). But it's not just in self-defense, because God commands Israel to attack and slaughter other nations too, so aggression is also justified.
I can give other examples where commands can contradict one another and where a person has to discern what the righteous action is.
Individual saints and Church fathers aren't infallible. St. Augustine held a host of problematic beliefs like filioque, inherent guilt, infants going to hell, predestination, abstracted essential Trinitarian model, lack of essence/energies distinction, emphasized institutionalization which led to papalism. He worked in Latin and didn't have access to the Greek fathers which led him to his errors. The Orthodox Church has canonized him but doesn't consider him an authoritative father and he's not part of the dogmatic consensus.
No, the position of pastoral flexibility and economic consideration is what St. John Chrysostom and other Eastern fathers held.
Sure. Here's Chrysostom:
Basil:
St. Gregory of Nazianzus:
St. Ambrose:
So in this case Origen is correct since he goes along with the consensus. Remember that just because someone was condemned, it doesn't mean everything he teaches is wrong and vice-versa - someone being canonized doesn't make him infallible. Origenism refers to his condemned heretical teachings and not to everything he ever wrote.
I don't care about what OrthodoxWiki says as if it's some authoritative source. This has nothing to do with prelest.