Dude, I just quoted some of the most important early Church fathers who back up the position. If you still can't understand the context where lying is permissible that's on you. Your logical argument is invalid because the second premise is false.
Every rule has exceptions to it. I can take pretty much any commandment and think about some exception where one would be justified to break it. What matters is intentionality and consequences. Since we can't comprehend every consequence of our actions because we're limited in knowledge, intentionality and spiritual discernment is paramount.
I agree with u/guywholikesDjtof2024 that permitting lying promotes confusion. The link I just posted demonstrates that the risk of discovery of intentional deception often creates a greater spiritual harm (lifelong distrust) than the harm that the deception intends to avoid. I also pointed out it's contradictory if the Orthodox actually taught "regulated deliberate deception is acceptable" and "deception is always a sin", because that would be doing evil that good may result.
I can take pretty much any commandment and think about some exception where one would be justified to break it.
You really fell down on that one when you had to admit:
I meant the 10 commandments.
So it's not only in the West where people minimize the moral law to the Ten. Instead the Sermon on the Mount maximizes the moral law to every spiritual application, and the Two Commandments (and all being like unto them) demonstrate that every moral principle is inherent in the ramifications of every command. They are all one and that is why they are consistent.
What matters is intentionality and consequences.
God controls consequences so we don't get to use that as determinative because it's not in our control (e.g. if our lie is caught leading to greater harm). The devil pleads intentionality on the road to hell. So what matters is rather Truth at all costs. Discernment only arises from commitment to Truth and nothing else. Not "truth and exceptions", not "truthiness".
God controls consequences so we don't get to use that as determinative because it's not in our control (e.g. if our lie is caught leading to greater harm). The devil pleads intentionality on the road to hell. So what matters is rather Truth at all costs. Discernment only arises from commitment to Truth and nothing else. Not "truth and exceptions", not "truthiness".
So you're not supposed to foresee the consequences of your actions and consider them before acting? Why were you given reason then - just follow the rules like an algorithm and you'd be fine, right? Do you realize that Scripture contains seemingly contradictory commandments if taken out of context and used as maxims? If you were to adhere to every commandment like a damn robot, you'd quickly run into absurdity. Prots get around this and cherry pick the commandments they like and pretend they should be applied without reasoning and nuance regardless of context.
So you're not supposed to foresee the consequences of your actions and consider them before acting?
Illogic, friend. We consider the foreseen and guess at the unforeseen; the fact that there is unforeseen doesn't allow us to treat the foreseen the same way. The lot falls into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord. The Lord turns the king's heart as he pleases. We have sufficient but imperfect consideration of the consequences based on our limited perception, so we cannot make that our final basis. Ultimately our pursuit of truth means not that we are capable to do so perfectly but that truth is capable to pursue us perfectly. That seems to be a minor quibble here though.
Why were you given reason then - just follow the rules like an algorithm and you'd be fine, right?
To the degree that we describe rules as being followed like an algorithm, that is true that they direct behavior, because as an algorithm they cannot contradict. To the degree that we describe rules as including the unstated, it's also true that behavior is directed by reasonable inference from rules. Law and reason are not in conflict, however you define them.
Do you realize that Scripture contains seemingly contradictory commandments if taken out of context and used as maxims?
Yes, and it does so deliberately in Proverbs 26:4-5, which teaches that we are to use context to determine meaning. All seeming contradictions are paradoxes to be unfolded. Thus the tension between "not killing" (not murdering) and "killing" (executing) is a paradox, not a contradiction, and you should describe it as a seeming contradiction instead of having said it was not absolute.
Prots get around this and cherry pick the commandments they like and pretend they should be applied without reasoning and nuance regardless of context.
Many do this, which is why I took the time to read the whole Bible and learn all its commands and learn how they are all applied without contradicting each other and learn the principles of reason and context that the later writers used to inspiredly interpret the earlier writers. Now I like all the commands. But it sure seems like you are cherry-picking the commands because to you they don't count if they're not in the Ten and those in the Ten are all capable of exception. That may be an uncharitable summary, so I'll leave it as a proposed perception and see if you can correct the perception. The question I'm looking for an answer to is whether it's ever necessary, justified, or sinless to have another god before God.
I meant the 10 commandments. For example do you think you ought to honor your parents if they are complete degenerates who treat you and your family like trash for no good reason? You're supposed to apply discernment and not follow the commandments like a freaking robot. God endowed man with reason and we should use it appropriately.
And it's not invalid. Why do you believe they're not confusing?
You're making the positive claim - what makes them confusing? Give an example how any of the above is confusing? If you lie to a demon to save the life of some innocent man is that bringing confusion? You see, this is why commandments cant be taken as universal maxims but should be examined case by case with wisdom. This is Kant's categorical imperative level idiocy.
Of course, reason alone is not enough and we're not rationalists or pragmatists. If a person is spiritually mature, if he partakes in the divine sacraments and follows the teachings of the Church and the advice of his spiritual father, then it gets much easier to discern.
PS: On the funny side, my favorite command is "Thou shall not gang bang". On a more serious side, genocide is a modern concept. I mean, what constitutes a genocide? Did the Israelites genocide the neighboring nations when they settled down or did they just ask them nicely for their land?
For example do you think you ought to honor your parents if they are complete degenerates who treat you and your family like trash for no good reason?
Uh, yes, you honor them by obeying them up to the point of conscience and by telling them when your conscience forbids your obedience (because they have given an immoral order, which abrogates their authority). It is a principle of US Con Law that a law repugnant to the Constitution is no law and can be disobeyed freely; but the sovereign citizen must make that judgment in the moment before a court weighs in and rules the law unconstitutional in accord with the sovereign's judgment.
You're supposed to apply discernment and not follow the commandments like a freaking robot.
If they are God's commands I see no alternative but to obey them in exactly the same way that rocks obey his commands. This doesn't apply to immoral human commands as judged by the light of conscience. But your language making it ambiguous which commands shows that, once again, you've placed authority in the earthly institution that you do not count as derivative from the only Lawgiver. And you did that by using your own judgment, which you don't admit using.
If you lie to a demon to save the life of some innocent man is that bringing confusion?
A literal demon is not deceived by human lies because he doesn't trust anything. A demonic human still has the image of God in him and should either be treated as such or, in extreme cases, told formally that his actions have lost him the right of being treated by you as human. If you declare war against him in that formal, regulated way, then what you say afterward is not directed to him and he is left to deceive himself about what he overhears.
You see, this is why commandments cant be taken as universal maxims but should be examined case by case with wisdom.
The specifics do not contradict the generic because they involve different combinations of cases than the generic. If they were perceived as permitting one to punch holes in the generic freely without distinguishing the difference of case, then the generic would no longer be the generic and one would be making a false equivalence.
You're still on the hook for claiming there are times when one might steal or commit adultery or take the Lord's name in vain or have other gods before him. I might call you on that too.
"Genocide", a word coined by a Jewish lawyer, is defined with duckspeak so that a single statement that another takes as offensive is as genocidal as the Great Leap Forward. The reality is, as I've indicated, the just-war doctrine that one does not aggress another. When one declares war one offers terms of peace. The short answer is that 31 kings of Canaan refused terms of peace, and 1 king (in Gibeon) accepted them. There are very long answers on the subject posted here too, but if you start to question moral unity because you haven't yet understood the details of the OT wars then you're in the same position as the atheists, who first made this a fad. I know you don't want that in Orthodoxy.
So I continue counseling you to recognize your assumptions and realize that only God is the perfect self-consistent Law and his expressions of that Law in the Bible are sufficiently inspired formulations that we receive and model with some imperfections. That means that everything in our experience is our limited judgment and only God can count as the source of unlimited judgment. He gifts both the church and the individual with judgment powers and neither takes the other's place.
God is not the Author of confusion. This doctrine you've taught about "permissible lying" promotes confusion. Therefore it is wrong.
Dude, I just quoted some of the most important early Church fathers who back up the position. If you still can't understand the context where lying is permissible that's on you. Your logical argument is invalid because the second premise is false.
Every rule has exceptions to it. I can take pretty much any commandment and think about some exception where one would be justified to break it. What matters is intentionality and consequences. Since we can't comprehend every consequence of our actions because we're limited in knowledge, intentionality and spiritual discernment is paramount.
So again, what about bestiality, adultrey, and those other sins I mentioned. Is there any point they magically become good?
I don't think so. Those are pretty straightforward. There are no examples in Scripture and Church tradition that provide exceptions.
I agree with u/guywholikesDjtof2024 that permitting lying promotes confusion. The link I just posted demonstrates that the risk of discovery of intentional deception often creates a greater spiritual harm (lifelong distrust) than the harm that the deception intends to avoid. I also pointed out it's contradictory if the Orthodox actually taught "regulated deliberate deception is acceptable" and "deception is always a sin", because that would be doing evil that good may result.
You really fell down on that one when you had to admit:
So it's not only in the West where people minimize the moral law to the Ten. Instead the Sermon on the Mount maximizes the moral law to every spiritual application, and the Two Commandments (and all being like unto them) demonstrate that every moral principle is inherent in the ramifications of every command. They are all one and that is why they are consistent.
God controls consequences so we don't get to use that as determinative because it's not in our control (e.g. if our lie is caught leading to greater harm). The devil pleads intentionality on the road to hell. So what matters is rather Truth at all costs. Discernment only arises from commitment to Truth and nothing else. Not "truth and exceptions", not "truthiness".
So you're not supposed to foresee the consequences of your actions and consider them before acting? Why were you given reason then - just follow the rules like an algorithm and you'd be fine, right? Do you realize that Scripture contains seemingly contradictory commandments if taken out of context and used as maxims? If you were to adhere to every commandment like a damn robot, you'd quickly run into absurdity. Prots get around this and cherry pick the commandments they like and pretend they should be applied without reasoning and nuance regardless of context.
Illogic, friend. We consider the foreseen and guess at the unforeseen; the fact that there is unforeseen doesn't allow us to treat the foreseen the same way. The lot falls into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord. The Lord turns the king's heart as he pleases. We have sufficient but imperfect consideration of the consequences based on our limited perception, so we cannot make that our final basis. Ultimately our pursuit of truth means not that we are capable to do so perfectly but that truth is capable to pursue us perfectly. That seems to be a minor quibble here though.
To the degree that we describe rules as being followed like an algorithm, that is true that they direct behavior, because as an algorithm they cannot contradict. To the degree that we describe rules as including the unstated, it's also true that behavior is directed by reasonable inference from rules. Law and reason are not in conflict, however you define them.
Yes, and it does so deliberately in Proverbs 26:4-5, which teaches that we are to use context to determine meaning. All seeming contradictions are paradoxes to be unfolded. Thus the tension between "not killing" (not murdering) and "killing" (executing) is a paradox, not a contradiction, and you should describe it as a seeming contradiction instead of having said it was not absolute.
Many do this, which is why I took the time to read the whole Bible and learn all its commands and learn how they are all applied without contradicting each other and learn the principles of reason and context that the later writers used to inspiredly interpret the earlier writers. Now I like all the commands. But it sure seems like you are cherry-picking the commands because to you they don't count if they're not in the Ten and those in the Ten are all capable of exception. That may be an uncharitable summary, so I'll leave it as a proposed perception and see if you can correct the perception. The question I'm looking for an answer to is whether it's ever necessary, justified, or sinless to have another god before God.
Wow, just wow. Adutlery? P3d0philia? Bestiality? Homosxuality? Chattel slavery with whips? Gang banging? Genocide?
And it's not invalid. Why do you believe they're not confusing?
I meant the 10 commandments. For example do you think you ought to honor your parents if they are complete degenerates who treat you and your family like trash for no good reason? You're supposed to apply discernment and not follow the commandments like a freaking robot. God endowed man with reason and we should use it appropriately.
You're making the positive claim - what makes them confusing? Give an example how any of the above is confusing? If you lie to a demon to save the life of some innocent man is that bringing confusion? You see, this is why commandments cant be taken as universal maxims but should be examined case by case with wisdom. This is Kant's categorical imperative level idiocy.
Of course, reason alone is not enough and we're not rationalists or pragmatists. If a person is spiritually mature, if he partakes in the divine sacraments and follows the teachings of the Church and the advice of his spiritual father, then it gets much easier to discern.
PS: On the funny side, my favorite command is "Thou shall not gang bang". On a more serious side, genocide is a modern concept. I mean, what constitutes a genocide? Did the Israelites genocide the neighboring nations when they settled down or did they just ask them nicely for their land?
Uh, yes, you honor them by obeying them up to the point of conscience and by telling them when your conscience forbids your obedience (because they have given an immoral order, which abrogates their authority). It is a principle of US Con Law that a law repugnant to the Constitution is no law and can be disobeyed freely; but the sovereign citizen must make that judgment in the moment before a court weighs in and rules the law unconstitutional in accord with the sovereign's judgment.
If they are God's commands I see no alternative but to obey them in exactly the same way that rocks obey his commands. This doesn't apply to immoral human commands as judged by the light of conscience. But your language making it ambiguous which commands shows that, once again, you've placed authority in the earthly institution that you do not count as derivative from the only Lawgiver. And you did that by using your own judgment, which you don't admit using.
A literal demon is not deceived by human lies because he doesn't trust anything. A demonic human still has the image of God in him and should either be treated as such or, in extreme cases, told formally that his actions have lost him the right of being treated by you as human. If you declare war against him in that formal, regulated way, then what you say afterward is not directed to him and he is left to deceive himself about what he overhears.
The specifics do not contradict the generic because they involve different combinations of cases than the generic. If they were perceived as permitting one to punch holes in the generic freely without distinguishing the difference of case, then the generic would no longer be the generic and one would be making a false equivalence.
You're still on the hook for claiming there are times when one might steal or commit adultery or take the Lord's name in vain or have other gods before him. I might call you on that too.
"Genocide", a word coined by a Jewish lawyer, is defined with duckspeak so that a single statement that another takes as offensive is as genocidal as the Great Leap Forward. The reality is, as I've indicated, the just-war doctrine that one does not aggress another. When one declares war one offers terms of peace. The short answer is that 31 kings of Canaan refused terms of peace, and 1 king (in Gibeon) accepted them. There are very long answers on the subject posted here too, but if you start to question moral unity because you haven't yet understood the details of the OT wars then you're in the same position as the atheists, who first made this a fad. I know you don't want that in Orthodoxy.
So I continue counseling you to recognize your assumptions and realize that only God is the perfect self-consistent Law and his expressions of that Law in the Bible are sufficiently inspired formulations that we receive and model with some imperfections. That means that everything in our experience is our limited judgment and only God can count as the source of unlimited judgment. He gifts both the church and the individual with judgment powers and neither takes the other's place.