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 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.