On telling the truth
#11
(12-11-2010, 12:11 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-10-2010, 08:13 PM)miss_fluffy Wrote: I hear this example about the wife asking if an outfit looks fat all the time, and honestly I don't get the reaction.  It's an honest question and her husband is the best person to let her know if it looks bad, because it's his duty to help her deal with the world, and support her needs.  When a woman asks if an outfit makes her look fat, she's really just asking if it looks sharp and put together.  If she's gaining weight for whatever reason and her clothes aren't fitting her right, she really needs to know that.  I mean, you don't want others snickering behind her back about her muffin-top do you?  Just tell her that you love the extra meat on her bones, but maybe it's time she updates her wardrobe to accommodate her changing frame. 

I respect your experience and opinion as a woman.  That said....

Gentlemen, do not follow this advice.  Trust me on this.  Even if she appears to appreciate the truth, if you say the above, 3 years later in some argument you will hear "you called me a fat ass".  If you also say the truth that she looks fine, she will at some point accuse you of saying it just to make her feel good.  Let her get the fashion advice from her friends or "What Not to Wear".

On the other hand, if she makes tuna cassarole for dinner, DO tell her you hate it or you'll be eating it for the rest of your life.  Tuna cassarole is a hill worth dying on.

Of course I mean the above tongue-in-cheek because some women DO want the truth as Miss Fluffy says.  But, really, some are fishing for a compliment or reassurance and will be deeply hurt if they get other than that.  It depends on the person and circumstance.

:rofl:  Sad, but true.  Oh, so true!  :wench:
Reply
#12
(12-10-2010, 07:13 PM)James02 Wrote: 2.  Same scenario, except that your town has formed an underground Catholic government in exile.  You all hear about the planned execution of your priest, so the governing council declares the death penalty on these police.  You and a group of men prepare an ambush and blow them away.  I'm 99.9% sure this is acceptable according to the Church.

So (1) is a sin, because you lied, but (2) is ok, you can kill them.  I don't think scenario 1 is a sin.

I agree with Quis on this---how is ambushing a group of people and blowing them away permissible?

What this really comes down to, like all sins, is free will.  But lying concerns very specifically the goal of somehow controlling the free will of another remotely.  It is just like the serpent in the garden of Eden: satan didn't  physically force an apple into anyone's mouth, but instead used lies to remotely manipulate others.  Of course, the other party has the option of contributing by allowing his will to be manipulated, or by incorrectly choosing to believe falsehoods over lies, but we are looking at this from the liars perspective, I think.    Pride is a major player in this sin, indeed, as we like people to think certain thinks of us, and we are willing to lie to accomplish that.  And that is what lies do, from affecting the opinions of others (a "white" lie, for example) to even affecting their safety and life (framing someone, for example).  If you intention is to control the will of another, you are certainly in sinful territory. 

Often the best option is to just be quiet.  We all really talk way too much, don't we?  A lot of problems could be solved with a little more silence, especially over little matters that will serve only to divide people by opinions.  I recently made an on-the-spot joke in response to another joke, and afterwards I thought, "Yeah, I should have just kept my mouth shut."  It wasn't the first time.

So, that said, what about Santa Claus?  What about white lies to children?  Examples? 
Reply
#13
Quote: I agree with Quis on this---how is ambushing a group of people and blowing them away permissible?

It could be a police action or a war action.  The people in the mythical Catholic town would not recognize the "official" pagan government and elect an underground Catholic government.  The underground governing council in my example would either try the police, looking at the evidence that they were coming to kill the priest.  In this case they have solid intel that the police are coming to kill the priest.

Or the governing council could order the strike as part of a guerilla war.  The group hosing the police would be following orders of a war council, or executing the will of a court.  It would be legit and moral.  Which leads you to the paradoxical observation that it is ok to kill the pagans, you just can't lie to them.

This one troubles me.  I would probably lie to save the priest.  Or maybe the answer is:  He's in my house, now die.  Then open up on them and go down defending the priest.
Reply
#14
(12-11-2010, 03:36 AM)James02 Wrote: It could be a police action or a war action.  The people in the mythical Catholic town would not recognize the "official" pagan government and elect an underground Catholic government.  The underground governing council in my example would either try the police, looking at the evidence that they were coming to kill the priest.  In this case they have solid intel that the police are coming to kill the priest.
Wll, we have already had this situation---its called the Early Church.  The "official" pagan government was hunting down and killing priests and converts--and popes!!---for sport!  St Peter didn't elect a secret underground Catholic government, establish a police force, arrest the Roman soldiers, and try them in some kangaroo court, and kill them.  Why would it be different today?  Why would we be "morally" able to do this today when all the early popes (who were martyred!) didn't do what you're suggesting?  And from what authority do you get that what you're suggesting is moral?  You're going to have to back this up.

(12-11-2010, 03:36 AM)James02 Wrote: Or the governing council could order the strike as part of a guerilla war.  The group hosing the police would be following orders of a war council, or executing the will of a court.  It would be legit and moral.  Which leads you to the paradoxical observation that it is ok to kill the pagans, you just can't lie to them.
This one troubles me.  I would probably lie to save the priest.  Or maybe the answer is:  He's in my house, now die.  Then open up on them and go down defending the priest.

Nah, you're coming up with some wild stuff here and declaring it moral and legit.  "Executing the will of the court?"  We don't do the "will of the court," we do the will of God.  You cannot kill people who are not an immediate threat to you.  Your various governing councils cannot declare immoral things to be moral, and if people follow their instructions and do immoral things, they are not off the hook for "just following orders."  If you are talking about ambushing the police to arrest them and try them in some court, then that is one thing(though still problematic), but it is quite different from what you said before in ambushing them and killing them.  Also, if you arrest them and "try" them in your underground court, you do not have the authority to kill them if they are not a danger to you.  Furthermore, you're basing this all on "they were coming for the priest," but if the priest was in no immediate danger when you all pounced on these guys or whatever you decided to do, then you had no right to pounce on them.  I think you're really jumping to conclusions here. 

I do see what your saying about lying versus telling the truth and then having a firefight.  If they came and said, "Is he here?" and you said "Yes," then they would storm your house, which would certainly give you reason to defend yourself and others, even to the point of killing them, but your must keep your intentions as desiring only to stop them.  If they withdrew, you couldn't not hunt them down and "finish them off" or anything like that.  They would be doing what they were doing why their own free will, and if they were threatening your, you could certainly defend yourself morally.  However, you certainly could not take glee in it, or else it would become murder, and you won't fool God.  Conversely, if you lie, and say "No, he's not here" you're possibly preventing the bloodshed, but you are also intentionally manipulating the truth to deceive them and thus interfere with their free will.  This interesting thing is that in real life, under these police states, the whole way the police states are empowered if through people lying and giving in, instead of speaking the truth and standing up.  Imagine if there was martial law here in the US and the first three houses the police went to say, "Yeah, he's here.  You are not invited in my house and if you come in here I'm going to defend myself."  There wouldn't be martial law for long, because the police would say, "No way, man, I'm not getting killed for this!"  So, the truth helps stop this stuff.
Reply
#15
QuisUtDeus Wrote:How about: "I refuse to answer."

Then you don't recognize the authority of the pagans and are in a state of rebellion. Lying to them to begin with can be justified as an act of war.  Of course, we are presupposing that there is no higher authority you can appeal to.

quotidianum Wrote:Wll, we have already had this situation---its called the Early Church.  The "official" pagan government was hunting down and killing priests and converts--and popes!!---for sport!  St Peter didn't elect a secret underground Catholic government, establish a police force, arrest the Roman soldiers, and try them in some kangaroo court, and kill them.  Why would it be different today?  Why would we be "morally" able to do this today when all the early popes (who were martyred!) didn't do what you're suggesting?  And from what authority do you get that what you're suggesting is moral?  You're going to have to back this up.

That's a different circumstance because the pagan government was a legitimate government and the persecutions were cyclical, not constant.  You could appeal to higher authority at times.  The Christians were too few and weak in the beginning to adequately defend themselves anyway. 


Reply
#16
Quote: arrest the Roman soldiers, and try them in some kangaroo court, and kill them.

Why would it be a kangaroo court?  It would be based on justice, holding the sovereignty of Christ the King as the underlying premise.

Think about Canada, where they drag preachers to "court" and condemn them for preaching against sodomites.  Now THAT is a kangaroo court.    If Canadian Catholics formed their own underground government, and gave notice that anyone attempting to jail a priest for preaching against sodomy would be committing a capital offense, I would consider that completely legit.
Reply
#17
Way to go James, you turned this into the inquisition LOL

Anyway, I know a guy, a protestant preacher no less, who boasts about the fact that he never lies and will not lie no matter what and that he will always only tell the truth.

After knowing him over a year, I can say that quite often, he is worse than a liar because of what he does not say. His truths are made into half truths by leaving out certain important facts when he gives answers or makes statements..........after which he justifies the whole matter because he did not lie, and he didn't, at least not outright.

Just saying that one can always tell the truth, but if it's not the whole truth, it can be the same or worse than telling a lie.



 
Reply
#18
(12-11-2010, 04:10 AM)quotidianum Wrote: Wll, we have already had this situation---its called the Early Church.  The "official" pagan government was hunting down and killing priests and converts--and popes!!---for sport!  St Peter didn't elect a secret underground Catholic government, establish a police force, arrest the Roman soldiers, and try them in some kangaroo court, and kill them. 

That's probably because Christians were a small minority religion that wouldn't have stood a chance against the world's current superpower. Plus, most Christians were much more anti-violence than most Christians today.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)