That's begging the question how do you determine what aggression is just.
It's not begging the question, I explicitly told you that it's a long digression when we try to describe all the cases. Jesus wasn't said to use the whip on the moneylenders, he probably directed animals with it. No aggression is to be permitted and aggression is defined as threatening or initiating force against another's person or property. Lots of Christians have theologies that permit some aggressions, as you do with your permission of lying, but I believe they're inconsistent. Now, you may want to know about the regulations by which I permit a just war, such as a formal judgment of the serious aggression conducted by the other party, and an offer of terms of peace, a final unequivocal declaration of war, and the prohibition of war crimes. But I'm not sure you want to know, because the thrust is that you believe there is no absolute principle, and I say that both the general and the specific principles are absolute each in their own application and can be sufficiently stated in a few words in any particular case. So if you want to continue the question with specific cases, I'd be happy to hear your propositions and difficult passages.
I summarized your position that Chrysostom accepts deliberate deception with the less charitable "you tell me he's a liar". I don't see a need to modify that statement in its context. In the greater detail, I showed that you may be wrong (he may not accept deliberate deception) and that Chrysostom equivocates by admitting two meanings of the word "deceit", making him hard to pin down.
Go collect Church fathers as if they're pokemons.
As you do with Augustine and Origen. (I dislike Origen but I note that the Church did not condemn him and, out of respect for his other contributions, deliberately avoided using his name when anathematizing "monstrous apokatastasis", leaving the reader to decide the difference between monstrous and Biblical apokatastasis. So I interpret Origen in context, but you seem to dismiss him out of hand.)
What's your standard for discerning which father is reliable? Your personal judgment?
And what's your standard? A few other people's personal judgment? Your own Patriarch? Follow a multitude, but not to evil.
Btw no Church father teaches that lying is not a sin but that it could be justified under some circumstances.
But you said the fathers support the idea that "there is ever a time to deceive or mislead". You quoted Nazianzus, "It is necessary sometimes to deceive." How can there be a time for it, and it be necessary, if it is never justified? Get the semantics right please. There is no temptation except what is common to man and where God gives you a way out that you can bear up under it. If you say sin is necessary, you're in the Romans 3 loop of getting Paul's smackdown.
Please don't play the game of swapping murdering for killing. Murder is never justified. Do I need to call you out on your claim that all commands have exceptions?
You do you, it's not as if your bound to any position. Tomorrow you may wake up with a different feeling and go off it.
I tested all bonds and found only one would hold, my bond in Christ. I'm pretty confident that "No false testimony" will never admit of exception, but ultimately my confidence is that Christ will defend his word, not me. It's not in my power to protect myself against losing the truth, it's only in Christ's power and he has promised me I cannot slip from his hand. Feelings have nothing to do with it, they have been crucified. My unity of commitment has been vindicated by the fact that, having committed all to him, he continually gives light on any question that skeptics present to me, whether I had already learned the truth of the matter or whether I look into a new matter briefly. The consistency of all truth is his to uphold, not mine, and having taken my own hands off what is his responsibility, I've been freed up to enjoy his ever-growing manifestation of truth.
You begin to doubt me as I affirm commitment to rejecting all deception, even as you are the one stating leeway to permit deception in some way. Well, anyone is free to doubt, I can only appeal to Christ. I might point you to my five years of record here, or refer to my growing up in a covenantal church, learning about the Near East culture of the Bible so that I could understand the relationship of OT and NT, and my learning to be all things to all men to save some, with my one commitment to Jesus as Truth becoming my only motive. But if your position is that I'm wrong for using my judgment, even though everyone does so and you use your judgment to suspend your remaining judgment to the Church, and if you don't think you're using your judgment, I can only point out the illogic, as many ways as you permit me, and leave it there. You made an offhand comment that lying is sometimes justified, and you come full circle by discussing treating me as if I always were justifying lying, in every sentence. There's a reason why I do me as I do.
It's not begging the question, I explicitly told you that it's a long digression when we try to describe all the cases. Jesus wasn't said to use the whip on the moneylenders, he probably directed animals with it. No aggression is to be permitted and aggression is defined as threatening or initiating force against another's person or property. Lots of Christians have theologies that permit some aggressions, as you do with your permission of lying, but I believe they're inconsistent. Now, you may want to know about the regulations by which I permit a just war, such as a formal judgment of the serious aggression conducted by the other party, and an offer of terms of peace, a final unequivocal declaration of war, and the prohibition of war crimes. But I'm not sure you want to know, because the thrust is that you believe there is no absolute principle, and I say that both the general and the specific principles are absolute each in their own application and can be sufficiently stated in a few words in any particular case. So if you want to continue the question with specific cases, I'd be happy to hear your propositions and difficult passages.
I summarized your position that Chrysostom accepts deliberate deception with the less charitable "you tell me he's a liar". I don't see a need to modify that statement in its context. In the greater detail, I showed that you may be wrong (he may not accept deliberate deception) and that Chrysostom equivocates by admitting two meanings of the word "deceit", making him hard to pin down.
As you do with Augustine and Origen. (I dislike Origen but I note that the Church did not condemn him and, out of respect for his other contributions, deliberately avoided using his name when anathematizing "monstrous apokatastasis", leaving the reader to decide the difference between monstrous and Biblical apokatastasis. So I interpret Origen in context, but you seem to dismiss him out of hand.)
And what's your standard? A few other people's personal judgment? Your own Patriarch? Follow a multitude, but not to evil.
But you said the fathers support the idea that "there is ever a time to deceive or mislead". You quoted Nazianzus, "It is necessary sometimes to deceive." How can there be a time for it, and it be necessary, if it is never justified? Get the semantics right please. There is no temptation except what is common to man and where God gives you a way out that you can bear up under it. If you say sin is necessary, you're in the Romans 3 loop of getting Paul's smackdown.
Please don't play the game of swapping murdering for killing. Murder is never justified. Do I need to call you out on your claim that all commands have exceptions?
I tested all bonds and found only one would hold, my bond in Christ. I'm pretty confident that "No false testimony" will never admit of exception, but ultimately my confidence is that Christ will defend his word, not me. It's not in my power to protect myself against losing the truth, it's only in Christ's power and he has promised me I cannot slip from his hand. Feelings have nothing to do with it, they have been crucified. My unity of commitment has been vindicated by the fact that, having committed all to him, he continually gives light on any question that skeptics present to me, whether I had already learned the truth of the matter or whether I look into a new matter briefly. The consistency of all truth is his to uphold, not mine, and having taken my own hands off what is his responsibility, I've been freed up to enjoy his ever-growing manifestation of truth.
You begin to doubt me as I affirm commitment to rejecting all deception, even as you are the one stating leeway to permit deception in some way. Well, anyone is free to doubt, I can only appeal to Christ. I might point you to my five years of record here, or refer to my growing up in a covenantal church, learning about the Near East culture of the Bible so that I could understand the relationship of OT and NT, and my learning to be all things to all men to save some, with my one commitment to Jesus as Truth becoming my only motive. But if your position is that I'm wrong for using my judgment, even though everyone does so and you use your judgment to suspend your remaining judgment to the Church, and if you don't think you're using your judgment, I can only point out the illogic, as many ways as you permit me, and leave it there. You made an offhand comment that lying is sometimes justified, and you come full circle by discussing treating me as if I always were justifying lying, in every sentence. There's a reason why I do me as I do.